Sheryl Crow..Thanks for promoting breast cancer ignorance!

This is the part that bothers me

"The cure rate at five years is 100 percent with an early-detected breast cancer."

Isn’t junk science wonderful? NOT. Yes, stage 1A grade 1 or 2 Luminal A bc without LVI has a better prognosis out to five years, compared to TN, HER2+ and node-positive &/or larger tumors. But for ER+ breast cancer, even with adjuvant hormone treatment, the risk NEVER disappears and with each year of disease-free survival, the likelihood of recurrence increases. True, the vast majority of women with these cancers will live long enough to die of other “natural causes,” when they’d normally be expected to, before the bc recurs. But there is no “cure.” And early detection doesn’t necessarily guarantee detection of earliest-stage cancer. Plenty of women discovered more advanced stage cancers at their first opportunity--whether by screening mammo or finding a lump or other anomaly. They cannot be blamed for not detecting their tumors “early” enough--there are too damn many variables (type, grade, hormone-receptor and HER2 status, etc.). Some of us found our cancers before they spread to the nodes and before they grew to >2cm.--but that’s not because we were more “vigilant.” Next, nothing “prevents” breast cancer. You can lower the risk with lifestyle changes, but only prophylactic mastectomy of healthy breasts will theoretically “prevent” breast cancer from developing. And a DFS rate of 100% at 5 years is NOT a “cure rate,” nor is the figure 100%.

Look, I know Crow’s cancer was discovered via 3D mammogram, early-stage and apparently Luminal A--so she needed only lumpectomy, radiation (and presumably, endocrine therapy). But all of us need to educate ourselves as to proper terminology and hard science--and not let a paycheck from a medical-device or pharma mfr. blind us to the facts. Shame on the makers of the Genius 3D. Shame on the doctors who gave her bogus info or didn’t sufficiently explain the correct info. I can’t really say “shame on Crow” because she probably doesn’t have the level of knowledge of the disease that we do. Most celebrity spokes-patients don’t. But someone needs to set her...and People’s readers.....straight.

Pinktober already started here, mid-August, with pink pens and pencil cases and notebooks in the back to school merchandise at Staples, KMart, etc.

There was a big, pink, breast cancer awareness booth at the craft fair we attended yesterday. The booth will be at every craft fair up and down our state September through December.

Also, we have the entire month of May for "Paint the Town Pink" sponsored by our local hospital system: https://www.meridianhealth.com/community/events/pa... "to raise awareness of the importance of annual mammography and to spread the word that early detection is a woman's best defense against breast cancer."

Lots of awareness, not many facts (% of cancers that metastasize, % of cancers that start at stage IV). All hoopla and cheering.

"I ask... who is more ignorant? People Magazine reporters and their editors? Or Ms.Crow?"

ALL OF THE ABOVE

Well here's my rant on this topic. In New York they are running an ad campaign on buses and subways called "Breast cancer: early detection is the best prevention". And I'm thinking that's nice, since "early detection" isn't available to women like me (I'm 36, no BC in family etc). My first (and last) mammogram was AFTER I was already diagnosed with BC. By the time I reach 40, if I'm that lucky, the breasts will be long gone.

I hate the pink stuff. I read a post on this website about a lady who was turned away from a pink fundraising photo op because she still had hair...because she was stage IV and not having chemo. That for me says it all

It's reading news like this that makes some of my well-meaning friends tell me how "very treatable" BC is these days. My response is to describe what a year of the "poison, cut and burn" regimen is really like, not to mention the fact that even after all that, no matter what stage you are, it could come back any time.

Breast cancer charities have learned a few things over the years. One is to feature young bc women with a couple of kids in their advertising, even though women under 30 with this disease make up less than one per cent of new cases. This is the same percentage as men getting bc and have you ever seen a guy feature in the ads? Women who get bc are typically in their fifties or older, men in their sixties or older. And advocacy for the sort of things that ChiSandy mentions turns donors off, just like featuring Stage IV people.

When it comes to cancer charities, there is no charity as successful as a bc charity. To achieve these results, they have high overheads due to bloated marketing staff numbers. Sure they can raise big bucks, but the money is not spent effectively and if people knew the ratio of overheads to money raised they would be horrified at how little of their donation was spent effectively.