Thought I'd include my response to a guy who is doing an article into whether or not the media is sesationalist when it comes to cancer and the possible causes.

Read your post on facebook and thought I'd drop you a line for what it's worth.

I think the coverage in the media is sensationalist ... stark warnings that eating X can cause cancer and eating Y increases your chances of having cancer in later life. While there are some very good guidelines suggesting what is good and bad, the media tends to portray this in a very narrow minded way. And the outcome? Do less people eat X & Y? I'm not sure it has a great effect overall although having said that I have heard some stories to the reverse. When the media come out and say eating X or Y can severely decrease your chances of getting cancer, the shops seems to sell out overnight.

The media want a headline story. Take Jade Goody for example. Whilst I think Jade Goody's sad plight did more for cancer awareness than many campaigns put together, the media, rather than taking this opportunity to help raise awareness with facts and advice or what you should do if you have specific symptoms, channel their energy on seemingly wanting to make Jade the next Princess Diana.

I have a personal interest in Bowel Cancer. My Dad died 12 months ago at the age of 55. Did he die of Bowel Cancer? Technically no. Having been initially diagnosed, had his operation in October 07 and went onto to complete 6 months chemotherapy. He was delighted to have been accepted for a trial drug programme which he had administered for 6 months on his "week off" from the main chemo drug. He battled through the treatment very positively and had booked to fly to Spain to get some sun on his back on the Saturday 31st May 2008. He finished his treatment on the previous Tuesday and had his lines taken out. He got the all clear on the Thursday, technically therefore having beaten cancer for the time being at least, only to drop down dead on the Friday with a massive pulmonary embolism.

I didn't know much about cancer until my Dad was diagnosed. I wish I still lived in ignorance in a way. I wouldn't then have had to be told that he had contracted the disease. I wouldn't have had to see the pain and distress he was in after his operation when the epidural giving him morphine became misplaced in his back and couldn't be repositioned ... or the problems he had with getting a line into his arm which resulted in having to have the chemo tubes stitched through his chest. So did he die from eating too much red meat or excessive amounts of salt? I don't know but I'd be more interested in knowing whether the trial drug had something to do with his death, or more research into whether or not chemotherapy should be combined with blood thinning drugs. I'm no expert but as far as I understand, chemotherapy can increase the risk of blood clots, Deep Vein Thrombosis, Pulmonary Embolus which is exactly what killed my Dad. So whilst I agree prevention is better than cure, instead of scaring people into avoiding eating red meat or too much salt, I'd rather know if blood thinning drugs would be beneficial to chemo patients (they seem to use them more frequently in the States but not so much over here) and what exactly was in the trial drug and did that in some way help or hinder my dad's predicament. Furthermore, should my dad's dose of chemo been reduced on the basis he's lost nearly 3 stone in weight since the beginning of his treatment.

Here's an excerpt from the Cancer Research website (admittedly for lung cancer)

There is a trial to find out if blood thinning drugs can improve treatment for lung cancer. Blood clots are quite common in people who have lung cancer. And cancer treatment can increase the risk of blood clots. Dalteparin is a blood thinning drug (anticoagulant), also called Fragmin. It is used to prevent and treat blood clots. Doctors think that dalteparin may also affect how cancer cells spread through the bloodstream, but they don't know for sure. So this trial is giving dalteparin alongside standard treatment for lung cancer to see if it reduces the number of blood clots people get. And to see if it can help to stop cancer cells spreading through the bloodstream to other parts of the body.

If you search for "blood chemo thinning" in Google there are numerous articles arguing the pros and cons of such drugs and whether they should be used in tandem with chemotherapy treatment.

Anyway, I don't know whether this is what you were after or not (but feel better for getting it off my chest all the same). I guess in summary, would I rather we were told to eat less red meat or given some hard facts about the reality of cancer and the effects it has on people's lives. I don't suppose I need to answer that. Is the media sensationalist? Well, what gets more coverage ... bowel cancer, the 2nd biggest cancer killer in the UK, or the far more sexy breast cancer?

I should make it quite clear I have nothing against Jade Goody or the good that breast cancer charities do. In my opinion though, it's a bit like the red meat issue ... let's get it into proportion and everything in moderation.