Pinktober

Its now Pinktober. It will be horrible. There will be pink on everything. There were even little pink ribbons on the bananas I bought last week. I was appalled but I didn't notice until I got home and it was too lazy to bring them back.

But please brace yourself and do not get sucked into the pinkification which will be rampant all month long. Please do not purchase anything or donate to anything that claims to support breast cancer unless you know the following:

• The organization to which the money is going - are they a real organization that really will use the funds to provide what they said they will.
• That the total amount of the money you think you are giving to a organization is really going to them. You need to check the fine print on the label to learn this. 
• Is it $1, $5, or $10 or what amount going to them. Just because you spent $30 on something, what portion of that is going to support a cause. Its probably not the full amount.
• Is there a maximum amount for the program? An example of this is that big companies will say '$1 from the price of this lipstick will be donated to XYZ organization, up to a total donation of $25,000 for the year'. Read the fine print again.
• Don't purchase anything you really do not want or need. All this pinkification is designed to help sell more products. Its just a big marketing ploy. 

Breast cancer is the current 'cool cancer' and pink is such a 'pretty color' it can be splashed all over everything. But its just a big money maker for big industry. Not for the little peon breast cancer patients.

If you really want to support breast cancer, find a worthy cause - American Cancer Society, BreastCancer.org, or a local organization you know well. And send them a nice check. You can even put it into a nice pink envelope if you want.

So What Will It Feel Like?

Have you ever wondered what your next medical adventure really will be like? I mean how will they really feel during and afterwards? Nurses and doctors tell you things like "there may be some discomfort", or the ever popular "little pinch". Maybe you might feel "tired afterwards" or "possibly nauseous", or "a little pain" at the site that can be handled by "OTC acetaminophen or ibuprofen". But you really need prescription morphine for the pain, cant get out of bed for three days because of fatigue, or spend days running for the bathroom.

They never can tell you more, like the real truth. Bounded by HIPAA concerns or the simple fact that they have never experienced it themselves. Face it most of our medical professionals have never experienced the procedures they perform on patients. Sure they have had blood tests, injections, and more, but have they had your chemo protocol, surgery, or invasive procedure? Probably not.

Hence there is no way for them to tell you how you will feel before, during, and after, other than scared sh**less, because they really do not know.

I hate this. I have learned to research all medical procedures before I have them. I also look to friends and others who might have experienced it to find out what its like from the patient's perspective. (I am so 'healthy' my father, in his late 80s, asks if I have had any new procedure recommended for him.) I do not obsess about it but I do want a good idea of what something will be like.

I have learned some important things like do I really want to go by myself because I won't want to drive home. Or I can come close to passing out after in the knee injections. Or... the list goes on. So I have learned to ask questions and do my research.

Please stop changing your mind!

The news: saturated fats not bad, trans fats very bad. Now they tell us. Thank you.

Does this mean all old research will eventually be turned upside down and we can eat ice cream and chocolate every day? I find this very irritating. Its just not fair to all of us who make dietary choices now and then find out later they were wrong and we could have ignored the advice.

Actually what really annoys me is that this also happens with medical advice and it turns out whatever procedure you had was completely unnecessary.

But it is the price we pay for progress sometimes. Even though it is irritating.

Doing my research

Every so often, I get the good idea to get my medical reports and review them myself. I do this because people tell me I should have the copies of my test results. I try to do what I am told, am often curious, and too impatient to wait for the doctor to tell me at our next visit.

Then I take my little reports home with me and try to decipher them. Why is my RBC below normal? Answer it has never recovered since chemo and it is just under normal. Some of the other tests I do not really understand. I do some research and end up at medical articles where I need to go to med school to be able to decipher.

At some point, I always say to myself "Why am I doing this anyway?" Sometimes I convince myself I have some deadly disease or ailment that will kill me without immediate treatment. Other times I convince myself that I really am healthy with just a few bad test results.

But my point is that I do my research and feel I should more frequently get my test results and monitor them better. For example my last blood test included my C-Reactive protein measurement. This is what tells the level of my rheumatoid and whether I am experiencing a flare up or not.

Unfortunately I don't think I have enough of my blood test results. But need to dig through my files to see what they have been in the past so I can continue to track them. Then I can continue to do research and see if I am going to live or not.

Or I can just continue to self diagnose myself into every ailment known to man.

About all that research

We hear about new research again and again and again. We hear it is progress. We hear people hail it as the latest and greatest. But what does it all really mean? Sometimes I get frustrated by all the so called progress that never seems to help me... And then how often do the researchers stop and ask the people with the ailment what they think of the progress? I am not sure. The pharma companies always say its progress because it helps fatten their bottom line and they can feel good about helping more people. But what about us? I do know that the DOD has a program where their cancer research programs include consumers - meaning those who have had the ailment - as part of their proposal review program. But do others? I never know. I wish it was part of the information provided when results are revealed - that others who had the ailment can see the potential benefit by the progress as opposed to someone looking at a bottom line. I think I have been disappointed too many times by clinical trials for which I am not eligible and then research that doesn't help me. I do mean I get advice on what to eat, drink, do (or to avoid) but I am still waiting for that magic pill that improves my quality of life. I would like more research to ask those who benefit from it what they really want.

No surprise here: Institutional Corruption and the Pharmaceutical Industry

The systematic corruption of medical knowledge, ranging from clinical trials and new diagnostic categories through practice guidelines to physician prescribing practices, is highlighted in a special fall issue of the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics (JLME, 41:3). 

Okay, this was published last fall so you may call me a little slow. But the content, as much as I read (because there was so much more), clearly shows the issues. I recommend you start here and then read as much as you can (stomach).

I read that, I downloaded some articles and read them. I did not read them all. But I got the gist of it.

The systemic corruption, there term not mine, that leads to all sorts of on going problems and unethical practices. Look at this one sentence:

"....how pharmaceutical marketing also distorts medical practice, and how drug firms are even funding social network websites for doctors in order to quietly track their opinions on issues that affect their bottom lines."

And you thought NSA was bad about spying on US citizens.

This next bit was taken from one of the articles by Dr. Marc Rodwin:

We will see that the pharmaceutical industry’s own purposes are often undermined. In addition, pharmaceutical industry funding of election campaigns and lobbying skews the legislative process that sets pharmaceutical policy. Moreover, certain practices have corrupted medical research, the production of medical knowledge, the practice of medicine, drug safety, and the Food and Drug Administration’s oversight of pharmaceutical marketing.

Pharmaceutical firms have found ways to influence — and often corrupt — medical research and publications, and key firms and organizations that affect physicians’ clinical choices. These include: professional medical associations, continuing medical education programs, online professional networking groups, hospital administrators, insurers, organizations that create practice guidelines and diagnostic treatment categories, and patient advocacy organizations. These institutions in turn influence physicians in general and particularly influential physicians known as key opinion leaders.

So you wonder about the over priced medications that are promised to be miracles and then are pulled from the market because of previously unknown side effects. Perhaps the causes might lie in the truths uncovered here.

Don't believe everything you read or hear

The majority of that 'research' online and in the news is wrong. Or biased or incomplete. In other words, not credible.

This is what happens. Journals which are peer reviewed, meaning a medical journal where all articles are reviewed and approved by a board of doctors before being published, are full of credible information. That is good information.

But then there are many other magazines and journals where researchers send their results to get published. If you get published as a researcher it adds to your credibility and CV so you can build pages of publications so it gets to be nice a long which is a positive think the research world.

Journals are always trying to find ways to fill pages. Some journals are ad free which are published by associations who pay for their publication through member dues and other funding. Magazines which have ads are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They want the ads to pay for their publication but are required by law to have a maximum percentage of pages of ads vs. pages of articles. So the more articles they have the more ads they can have and therefore increase their revenue.

They will publish anything that looks credible.

Then articles get picked up by the media and blown out of proportion and we all get scared and hyped up to avoid BPA or food additives or Vitamin C or red wine (next week white wine).

I am sure I have blogged about this in the past. The advantage of chemo brain, fibro fog, tamoxifen fog, and whatever else I have is that I can't remember squat. But this time I have an article which explains how the whole BPA thing was based on poor data and sampling but hen got picked up by  the media and all the manufacturers got right by getting us to buy new water bottles without BPA.

So don't believe what you read no matter how much it is splashed all over the media. Wait for additional verification. And use your common sense.

Breathing causes cancer

I knew it would come to this. Everything has been researched to the nth degree, millions of researchers have been employed, everything has been dissected, ressected and digested. We have been told that no salt, no wine, no chocolate, lots of vegetables, lots of fruit, get exercise, no we were wrong red wine only, dark chocolate only - and only in moderation (whatever that means), not those fruits but blueberries and other things you have never heard of. We have tried to decipher diets, pyramids, and scams.

But now they tell us. Breathing causes cancer. Actually its not the actually breathing that causes caner but what we breath - air pollution - which causes cancer.

So while this is the active theory, we all need to move out to the wilderness and set up individual homes with solar power (because coal and wood smoke cause air pollution), grow our own fruits and vegetables (but only the right kinds). And grow them organically.

In the meantime, practice holding your breath so you breathe as little as possible to reduce your risk of getting cancer from air pollution. Once you turn blue, more research will be done to figure out how you can avoid inhaling more air pollution.

Things with a cure

The CDC recently warned of these new germs that are resistant to treatment - the superbugs as they are called. They are out there and killing more and more of us as they resist most treatments. While the pictures of them are pretty cool, the germs themselves are not.

There are other ailments with out a cure. I have a few:

Fibromyalgia
Rheumatoid
Degenerating disks

There are lots of others that I don't have for which I am grateful.

They have treatments to ease the symptoms but not cures. Medical research is needed for these nasty germs and the incurable ailments.

Perhaps I am feeling a little down this morning because when I got out of bed everything hurt. So I am going with plan B - stay in bed until the pain meds kick in. The cat is hanging out with me and the TV is on in the background so I am as comfy as I can get.

But if you don't have these you don't understand. Today I feel like crap. I have plans and will do my best to get through them. But the problem is I know that every day can be like this for the rest of my life. Its pretty damn depressing.

I may sneer at medical studies (because we always need more research) but we really do need the research. There are lots of ailments that do not have cures. And we have these new treatment resistant germs that pop up and kill people. Never mind the bird flus and all the other new ailments.

I think I need a vacation. Oh that's right I am on vacation.... Off to have fun and not be depressing....

More research is needed

I ended my experiement and found that more research is needed:

First of all I should have done a bit more planning. I would have found that it is really 380 miles to visit my brother, not 300 miles. I turned on the GPS in my phone and realized I was wrong. Crap. Not a good way to start.

Then I should have brought more water with me. I brought one little bottle and ended up having to buy water - I hate buying water because of they are all the single serve ones (which should be outlawed as far as I am concerned).

I also have some questions for the FastLane/EZ Pass people. In Massachusetts, they are 15 mph lanes. In New York, they are either 20 mph or 5 mph. There was one toll plaza which alternated 20-5-20-5. Go figure. I have no idea either.

If one wants to go shopping on their drive, one should make sure the stores are open. I stopped at one outlet center because it was right off the highway, I wanted to run one errand and it was almost 1/3 of the way. The store is listed on the outlet center's website but when I got there, there was a little asterisk which said *Coming Soon. There was no asterisk on line. A little truth in advertising, please.

Another helpful tip is to combine potty breaks with refilling the gas tank. Its stupid to make two separate stops.

It doesn't help if you bring yogurt to eat in the car if you do not pack spoons.

The weather should have cooperated better. It snowed from Albany all the way through Syracuse not really sticking but enough to make visibility fairly poor and to have crap being thrown up from the road by the other cars. (And the stupid pedestrian who was standing on the median strip on I-90 at mile post 234 trying to cross in the snow storm, I hope you are okay. I did call 911 for you.)

I found that I needed new wiper blades as they did not clear a round area right in front of the driver's face so I needed to lean right or left, or stretch up or scrunch down to see during the snow.

Oh and on being tired, did I survive. When I arrived, I was exhausted. My right arm and shoulder were fairly tired. It is hard for me to drive with both hands on the steering wheel the whole time. One handed driving seems to work better (except when in the snow). Once I arrived, I was happy not to drive for most of the weekend.

Running around after four kids did tire me out all weekend. My brother made fun of me for going to bed early (brat). But I had fun with the kids too.

The ride home I was very tired and found my husband wasn't feeling well. I rested and then went out for a few essentials. We both went to bed early and feel better, but its snowing very hard so we are going nowhere. A good day to catch up at home and spend some time together.

Before my next trip, I will do more research, bring more food and water, and make sure I have good wipers. I'm not sure how I will do on a longer drive, even without snow.

Experiment concluded

I survived my experiment. I will analyze my data and figure out my analysis. I have a feeling I will need more research because my back hurts and I need a nap.

Those sneaky hospital costs

A new hot button issue in the world of medical treatment are the sneak hospital costs. Hospitals and insurance companies have negotiated these rates and traditionally they have been covered by insurers. But as patients switch to higher deductible policies they are bearing the brunt of these costs.

On the hospitals side, they claim they warn patients by putting signs up through the facilities where these are charged so patients are warned. But they are not told the amounts until they receive the bill. They also say these fees pay for things like twenty four hour ER stays, research, and teaching.

Medicare allows doctors to charge overhead fees for work performed in buildings owned by hospitals. So I guess this is automatically done for us non Medicare patients.

On their side, insurance companies do negotiate with the hospitals but say they can't change the way hospitals bill. (Sounds like someone might be trying to pass the buck here.)

I can understand hospitals have costs that are not included in the fee to pay to see the doctor. They are in big buildings and they provide additional services than just doctor visits. They are also trying to cover their research costs, etc. While hospitals are there to treat patients who pay the fees to get care, you can't tell me they do not get grants to pay for research which should cover the research costs?

If we get to research costs again, aren't patients also paying for the research costs for the pharma companies by receiving really expensive brand name drugs as well?

I think that this is clearly another issue that shows how badly our healthcare system is messed up and how much more change is needed.

Stronger cancer drugs

There is a new type of cancer drug being investigated. They are called carboranes:

"Over the past decade, we have seen an increasing interest in using carboranes in drug design," said Mark W. Lee Jr., assistant professor of chemistry in College of Arts and Science. "Carboranes are clusters of three elements — boron, carbon and hydrogen. Carboranes don't fight cancer directly, but they aid in the ability of a drug to bind more tightly to its target, creating a more potent mechanism for destroying the cancer cells.

In the study, Lee and his research team used carboranes to build new drugs designed to shut off a cancer cell's energy production, which is vital for the cell's survival. All cells produce energy through complex, multi-step processes. The key to an effective drug is targeting the process that cancer cells depend on more than healthy cells. By increasing the binding strength of a drug, a smaller dose is required, minimizing side effects and increasing the effectiveness of the therapy. With carboranes, Lee found that the drug is able to bind 10 times more powerfully.
"The reason why these drugs bind stronger to their target is because carboranes exploit a unique and very strong form of hydrogen bonding, the strongest form of interactions for drugs," Lee said."

They have been tested on breast, lung and colon cancer and are very successful. They are also being tested on other forms of cancer. What is significant about their strength is that you can take a smaller dose which will have a stronger effect but will have fewer side effects. I'm all for fewer side effects in life.

Of course more research is needed so it won't be around anytime soon. But I still call this a significant advance.

Every patient is different

Every patient is different. Every patient is different. Every patient is different. Every patient is different. Every patient is different. Every patient is different. Every patient is different. Every patient is different. Every patient is different. Every patient is different. Every patient is different. Every patient is different. Every patient is different.

As you may know from reading my blog that one of the biggest thing that irks me is when someone tells you that their neighbor's cousin's dog walker's sister's friend had the same ailment as you 20 year ago and their treatment protocol was different and they just don't understand why you are getting something different. Its rude. It makes you doubt your own treatment protocol and doctor. And its none of their damn business.

So now this study (because we needed another study) says that 'Individualized Care is Best for Lymphedema Patients'. I didn't go to medical school and I could have told you that.

Living with lymphedema is no fun. I can't wear a watch or bracelet on my left arm - no matter how loose it is. If I do I have to wear a compression sleeve for a week to make my arm feels better. This surprises my doctors. I also have to wear a compression sleeve when I work out or when my arm feels like its acting up - like maybe today I will. I have to do the stupid little lymphedema exercises to help my arm. They are just annoying.

I have a friend who had lymphedema and then lost a lot of weight and it went away. I have another friend who is very thin and has to wear a custom sleeve every day - and has for 17 years. I have a lot of friends who had the same surgery and never got lymphedema. See we are all different. 

Blah, blah, exercise more, blah, blah

Right up therer with common medical advice - eat right, stand up straight, floss - is get some exercise. When have they ever told us not to exercise? Exercise is good for all sorts of things - we know this. This is why we had gym class in school and were sent out side to play and went for walks all the time.

There are some downsides to exercise - blisters from badly fitting or the wrong shoes. Or, muscle aches and pains for the days when you might 'over do' things by a tiny bit. Or stretching injuries if you perchance are in the slightly wrong position and end up with a very painful knee (not that I would know this by experience or anything).

But there is another new benefit to exercise - reducing your breast cancer risk. Who would have thought? Duh. Exercise is known to be good for us. But, here's the real story:

"Moderate exercise tied to lower breast cancer risk 

...Women who exercise moderately may be less likely than their inactive peers to develop breast cancer after menopause, a study published Monday suggests.

And it did not take a vigorous workout; regular exercise at any intensity level was linked to a lower breast cancer risk, the researchers say.

Still, there are reasons to believe it can, said lead researcher Lauren McCullough, of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

One possible way is indirectly, by reducing body fat, McCullough said in an interview. Excess body fat is related to higher levels of certain hormones, including estrogen, as well as substances known as growth factors, which can feed tumor development.

Researchers found that of more than 3,000 women with and without breast cancer, those who'd exercised during their childbearing years were less likely to develop the cancer after menopause.

The findings, reported in the journal Cancer, add to a number of past studies tying regular exercise to lower breast cancer odds.

But like those past studies, this latest one can only point to a correlation: It does not prove that exercise, itself, is what cut women's breast cancer risk.

But exercise might also have direct effects, McCullough said -- by boosting the immune system or the body's ability to clear cell-damaging "free radicals."

That is all speculation for now.

But, McCullough said, the findings do support the general health recommendation that adults stay active throughout their lives."

So what does this tell us? Speculation is telling the researchers that exercise can lower your breast cancer risk. So before you adopt a mighty exercise plan to reduce your risk of breast cancer, just remember that it is speculation that is driving this.

This also reminds that all these studies that tell us things like eating spinach is good for us - some is based on science and some is based on speculation because there appears to be a correlation. And it always needs more research to prove anything.

Allow me to be a little smug

They didn't need a study to prove it (as if we needed a medical study). I knew this all along. Exercise has now been proven to help breast cancer patients. Go back and read my blog in 2007. You will note I talk about my daily walk. I did go for a daily walk all during treatment - surgery, chemo, radiation. The only time I skipped a day was if I was hospitalized.

Before my diagnosis, I was going for a daily walk anyway. I just saw no reason to stop because of the pesky cancer thing. It was actually a good thing to do. It helped with side effects. It helped with sleeping - physically tiring yourself out lets you sleep better at night. It helped with my mood. All through treatment, no one ever discouraged me from walking. The nurses and doctors were very supportive and encouraged me to continue.

I even belonged to a gym. Before breast cancer, I had hit a certain 'age' that ended in a zero and had decided I should join a gym and do weight bearing exercise as I was now aging. Well, I went to the gym. I looked at the machines and went over to the elliptical or the treadmill. I didn't know how to use the machines. And then my back went bad and all those machines, treadmill, and elliptical managed to make my back hurt.

I have since given up that gym and joined the gym for dilapidated people like me. There are many dilapidated people there - seriously, walkers, oxygen tanks, wheel chairs, prostheses, etc. The gym is run by physical therapists and designed for people with health issues. They work around my problems and I can actually get in a good work out.

One of my issues is lymphedema. In the past, they used to tell women with lymphedema were told - no exercise, not to strain your arm, just do these stupid little exercises to get your lymph system moving and prevent fluid build up in your arm. Then a study came along (of course another study or ten) which said light exercise was beneficial.

[I am training for my body building competition by lifting one pound weights - 2 sets of 15 reps of front and side lifts. Well, its not just my lymphedema problem in my left arm, its my tennis elbow in my right arm that won't go away and whatever weird thing is going on with my shoulder that hamper my chances for a win.]

But I have digressed way too far here, completely off topic in fact. I am a bit smug because I exercised all through breast cancer treatment and now a study proves I was right all along.  Now its time for me to hit the gym.

A study on cyberchondria

Do you have cyberchondria? Do you skip your doctor's office - I mean why waste the money for a copy and the time to sit around a waiting room - and head straight for Dr Google to figure out what is wrong with you? Yes I'm talking to you. Stop denying it! Do we need an intervention? We are all guilty of it - whether we hit up Dr. Google or just our train of thought, for that offline version, down that evil road - cyberchondria that is.

This is where we self diagnose something usually fairly evil. Its not a head ache, its a brain tumor. WE ARE ALL GUILTY OF THIS!

And now to prove it, there has been a study done. Yes a real study to show the effects of cyberchondria. What a waste of time and money. This is like a study to decide if goldfish feel stress, a weed hurts when yo pull it up, or if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it does it make any noise. Seriously. Cyberchondria is a normal person playing doctor on themselves. Why do we need a study? Self induced anxiety if you ask me (not that I have done it much myself...).

Now it must be a real ailment if there was a study. I wonder if its covered by my insurance?

News of the day

Random news that piqued my interest this morning:

1. Three Quebec mammography clinics missed 109 cases of breast cancer - primarily due to one radiologist who has since retired. I am glad I did not go there. But also this is just an example that errors can occur everywhere and if we are not happy with results or have questions, we should get a second opinion or ask our questions until we get the answers we need.
   
2. A giant leap in personalized medicine occurred as two Boston area teams compiled a giant encyclopedia   "...that predict the vulnerability of hundreds of different subtypes of cancer to dozens of drugs. The massive catalogs, which were made freely available online Wednesday, are an important step toward the routine personalizing of cancer care, in which patients will receive treatments tailored to the specific genetic changes that influence a tumor’s response to drug regimens."
   
   This is sounds cool and sounds like lots of progress but its more than my tiny brain can comprehend. I'll just let someone else summarize it for me. If I could find the encyclopedia I might attempt to look at it.
   
3. Its time for all of us to start growing wild tomatillos - which are a native weed - which has been discovered to contain medical properties.
   "So far, the researchers have demonstrated 14 compounds found in the plant can fight numerous cancers and tumors without any apparent side effects or toxicity—namely: melanomas, thyroid cancer, head and neck squamous cell cancer, breast cancer, glioblastoma brain tumors, and certain leukemias. Other studies suggest these same molecules may combat both esophageal cancers and pancreatic cancers." I'll ditch the flower garden and lawn and grow some weeds instead.

Now I am off to work for the day to ponder these latest advances.

Researching online

I know I have written about Dr. Google and his flaws before. Dr. Google can tell you that you have ten terminal ailments along with psoriasis, athletes foot, head lice and bed bugs when all you have is a mosquito bite. Dr. Google can be very scary. Dr. Google is not a real doctor.

There is so much medical information on line and it covers the gamut of good solid information to complete quackery and scams plus a lot of well meaning people who are sure that what worked for them will definitely work for you. You need to sort through what is there and figure out what to believe and what to ignore. My personal recommendation is to stick with the credible sites of WebMD, Mayo Clinic, BreastCancer.org, American Cancer Society, possibly your own hospital's web page etc. I would skip any website trying to sell you something that will cure  you (or offers you a share in a Nigerian inheritance). Yes you can get lots of good solid information online. And an educated patient is a comfortable position to be in.

Online message boards can provide a lot of support from others coping with the same ailment and should be included in your online research. If you read to what the patients say you can learn how to cope with side effects and the ups and downs of treatment. Its not that patients are doctors and can give you advice but the general consensus you get from what everyone else is going through offers a different type of information. A group consensus can be just as helpful as online medical advice.

The New York Times published an article earlier this week on this topic. The author feels his life was saved by what he learned online. He kept reading about the same doctor for his type of cancer. He ended up going to see him a thousand miles away and felt that this doctor gave him the life saving course of treatment. (One comment on the article is that it recommends going to ACOR.org for help - that front page hasn't been updated since 2002 and it is full of broken links so I think you can skip it.)

I know I have learned a lot on line from message boards in addition to receiving (and giving I hope) a lot of support. They definitely helped balance out the ups and downs of cancer diagnosis and treatment. They also encouraged me to ask more questions of my doctors and educate myself so I was more comfortable with my course of treatments.

A good explanation

This sounds like a math lesson, or worse a statistics lesson. But what it really is a good, clear, understandable explanation of risk reduction and how to interpret it and what it really means. In other words, what it says without coming out and saying it is that they are trying, once again, to confuse us. Yes that evil 'them/they' which are the conspiracies against all of us, are at it again.

But really, it does help explain things and uses the example of the chocolate study that was announced recently that said 39% risk reduction for heart attacks if you eat chocolate. This is how they explain it:

"The study found that the combined risk of heart attack and stroke for those who ate the most chocolate was 39 percent lower than those who ate the least. That’s the relative risk reduction - what’s the absolute risk reduction?

For those who ate the most chocolate, researchers documented 2.72 cases of heart attack or stroke per 1,000 people per year, or .272 percent - the modified risk. For those who ate the least, there were 1.44 cases per 1,000 people per year, or .144 percent - the starting risk.

Subtract those two and you get .128 percent. (That’s actually nearly 50 percent lower than .272 percent, but researchers made adjustments for other risk factors like blood pressure to get to the relative risk reduction number of 39 percent).

In other words, there are two ways to look at these results: Eating chocolate decreases your combined risk of heart disease and stroke by 39 percent, or it decreases your risk from about .272 percent per year to .144 percent (before adjusting for other risk factors). That’s a pretty small reduction."

So in other words, when ever you hear that something reduces your risk by a certain amount, you need to ask what the risk was without the reduction and what is the real difference in the rate of diagnosis.