Lies, damn lies and unexamined information

This is the story of an email message. We've all had them--all too frequently. A friend or acquaintance has received the message from someone else, thought it was compelling and had to pass it on.

This particular email contained a list of points purporting to be "Cancer update from a U. S. hospital MD". As I read down the list, I became more and more astonished that the person who sent this--an intelligent and generally competent person--passed this on, apparently in all seriousness. It was such utter nonsense that I checked Snopes and sure enough, there it was. The Snopes posting had the name of the hospital, Johns Hopkins, which was missing from my email. The Snopes post links to a debunking page at Johns Hopkins.

In fairness, my friend is not an expert in medicine of any kind. Neither am I, and although the whole thing is pretty silly, this should have activated the BS detector immediately:

11. An effective way to battle cancer is to starve the cancer cells by not feeding it with the foods it needs to multiply.

CANCER CELLS FEED ON:

a. Sugar is a cancer-feeder. By cutting off sugar it cuts off one important food supply to the cancer cells. Sugar substitutes like NutraSweet, Equal,Spoonful, etc are made with Aspartame and it is harmful. A better natural substitute would be Manuka honey or molasses but only in very small amounts. Table salt has a chemical added to make it white in color. Better alternative is Bragg's aminos or sea salt. (Also cited in the original are the usual suspects: milk, meat, tea, coffee and chocolate.)

and this:

15. Cancer is a disease of the mind, body, and spirit. A proactive and positive spirit will help the cancer warrior be a survivor. Anger, unforgiveness and bitterness put the body into a stressful and acidic environment. Learn to have a loving and forgiving spirit. Learn to relax and enjoy life.

Really?
Really??

Eating a lot of sugar isn't especially healthy, and as the real Johns Hopkins points out obesity is a cancer risk factor. A positive attitude is said to be useful for all sorts of reasons, but as a cancer treatment?

We would all likely be healthier if we ate well, paying special attention to portion control since obesity is a risk factor for many medical conditions, but crackpot notions like changing your body's acidity/alkalinity (a REALLY bad idea, even if it were possible) and the ever-popular bogey "toxins" like that "undigested meat remaining in the intestines (to) become putrefied…" (also known as pre-poop I assume) should be given the hairy eyeball and investigated carefully. (Further reading: What's the Harm, Quackwatch)

There are several overlapping concepts involved. There is the anti-authoritarian, anti-"big pharma/institutionalized medicine"; taking responsibility for one's health through lifestyle choices; and a bit of folk medicine--simple, so-called common sense options (don't worry-be happy, eat your veggies). Many of the common sense ideas have merit as lifestyle options. Much of the anti-medicine is rooted in anti-science. Also, one of the issues brought up against "big pharma" is the profit involved. It might have a grain of credibility if it weren't for the astronomical prices often charged for the alternative/natural options--options for which there is no hard evidence for effectiveness. So, which information is reliable and which is bunk? Learn and think.