Suzanne Somers reveals she was misdiagnosed with 'full-body cancer'
Twitchell
There was a time when Suzanne Somers thought she only had days to live.
In her new book, �Knockout: Interviews with Doctors Who are Curing Cancer and
How to Prevent Getting It,� the �Three�s Company� actress talks about the fear
she lived with after being misdiagnosed with �full-body cancer.�
�For six days, six doctors confirmed I had inoperable cancer. I went into that
valley of fear. I saw my death, it was horrible,� Somers told CBS' "Early Show."
Somers, 63, says she spoke with several doctors about possible options to treat
a mass in her lung that had metastasized throughout her body.
In 2001, she decided to forgo chemotherapy when she was diagnosed with breast
cancer and instead, had a lumpectomy to remove the cancer followed by radiation
therapy and alternative care.
The experience inspired her to write her latest book that promotes treatments
that avoid chemotherapy.
�It�s a very brave choice to go against traditional medicine and embrace the
alternative route,� writes Somers in �Knockout." �It�s easier to try the
traditional route and then, if it fails, go to the alternatives, but often it
can be too late. My friend Farrah Fawcett - would she have made it if she had
gone alternative first? There is no way of knowing."
The book has already incited controversy, causing many doctors to speak out
against it.
robbielynn
> http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/10/27/2009-10-27_suzanne_somer...
I think the woman is gone over the edge.
MC
Twitchell <Twitchel...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/10/27/2009-10-27_suzanne_somers_reveals
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/10/suzanne_somers_fishy_whole_body
_cancer_s.php
Suzanne Somers' fishy "whole body cancer" scare
Category: Alternative medicine � Cancer � Medicine � Quackery
Posted on: October 22, 2009 9:30 AM, by Orac
I hadn't planned on writing about Suzanne Somers again so soon. After
all, I haven't yet received the promotional copy of her book (Knockout:
Interviews with Doctors Who Are Curing Cancer--And How to Prevent
Getting It in the First Place) that a most generous reader has sent to
me, and I didn't think I'd have a chance until a few days after the book
arrived. However, something's been bothering me since yesterday's post,
and it's bothering me enough that I think it deserves a followup post of
its own. I alluded to it briefly during part of my post, but I really
think it's something to be explored in a little more depth, particularly
since Chapter 1 of Knockout is available online. Also, look again (if
you can stand it) or for the first time at Somers' interview with Ann
Curry:
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
In Chapter 1, Somers describes a cancer scare. Specifically, she
describes an incident in which she was brought to the hospital with what
sounds like an anaphylactic reaction of some sort and was misdiagnosed
with what she calls "full body cancer." Now, I don't know what "full
body cancer" is, but I do know what full body stupid is, and Somers has
it in spades.
Be that as it may, I do want to say right here that I'm not referring to
Somers' "full body stupid" because of her misdiagnosis. It's quite
possible that she was misdiagnosed with widespread metastasis from her
breast cancer. I also don't want to under estimate how much it probably
scared her. Imagine yourself having survived breast cancer and then,
eight years later, being admitted to a hospital for something else and
being told that you had widespread metastases. It's a horrible thing, if
it really happened the way Somers said it happened.
Color me somewhat skeptical, however. Certain elements of Somers' whole
story sound a bit fishy. Moreover, note how, on the interview, Somers
declines to identify the hospital. Right at the outset, I wondered why
that is and see a couple of likely reasons. First, she's scared of being
sued. Of course, if you're a celebrity and the truth is on your side you
probably don't have much worry about being sued. In such a case, it's
far more likely that the entity suing would get the worst of it, at
least as far as negative publicity. More likely, Somers knows that,
whatever hospital she had been admitted to and whatever doctors had
cared for her, patient confidentiality and HIPAA law prevents the
hospital and doctors from discussing her case--or even admitting that
Somers was a patient. Indeed, neither the hospital nor any of the health
care professionals involved with Somers care can discuss her case
without her explicit permission. Their hands are completely tied, and
Somers can say whatever she wants without fear that anyone will
contradict her. That's why it disturbs me that no one who has
interviewed Somers yet has asked her a handful of very obvious--and
inconvenient--questions, namely:
* At what hospital were you hospitalized and when?
* Who were your doctors?
* Will you release some of your medical records and allow your
doctors to speak about your hospitalization?
* If not, why not?
These are questions that need be asked in addition to questions about
Somers' support for Nicholas Gonzalez, whose pancreatic cancer
"protocol" was recently shown to be worse than useless.
Now, on to the story:
I wake up. I can't breathe. I am choking, being strangled to death;
it feels like there are two hands around my neck squeezing tighter and
tighter. My body is covered head to toe with welts and a horrible rash:
the itching and burning is unbearable.
The rash is in my ears, in my nose, in my vagina, on the bottoms of
my feet, everywhere -- under my arms, my scalp, the back of my neck.
Every single inch of my body is covered with welts except my face. I
don't know why. I struggle to the telephone and call one of the doctors
I trust. I start to tell him what is happening, and he stops me: "You
are in danger. Go to the hospital right now." I knew it. I could feel
that my breath was running out.
Right off the bat, to me this sounds like an allergic reaction to
something or an anaphylactic reaction. It could be something else (more
later), but the first thing that comes to mind is an allergic reaction.
Indeed, upon hearing this story, I couldn't help but wonder if one of
the many supplements that Somers takes on a routine basis was the cause.
Did she start any new supplements recently? Certainly I'd wonder about
that. Regardless of the initial cause, it certainly sounded as though
the E.R. docs thought she had some sort of allergic reaction going. They
treated her appropriately with Benadryl, Albuterol, and steroids. Even
someone as dim as Somers realized that:
I say to the doctor, "It seems to me that I've either been poisoned
or am having some kind of serious allergic reaction to something. I
mean, doesn't that make sense? The rash, the strangling, the
asphyxiation. Sounds classic, doesn't it?"
"We don't know. A CAT scan will tell us. I really recommend you do
this," the doctor says. "Next time you might not be so lucky -- you
might not get here in time. You were almost out."
Why the doctor insisted on a CT scan, who knows? I don't, and certainly
Somers doesn't give enough information for me to make a particularly
educated guess. A CT scan is not generally the test of choice for
diagnosing the cause of anaphylaxis or respiratory distress, which is
what it sure sounds as though she was being treated for. Maybe doctors
saw a mass on chest X-ray. Who knows? It doesn't make a lot of sense.
There may have been other findings on physical examination that
suggested that a CT scan might be indicated. Again, in this chapter, at
least, Somers doesn't give us enough information to judge. She does,
however, engage in typical pseudoscientific thinking. While
acknowledging that those evil pharmaceuticals had saved her life, still
she can't help but hate on them:
I am now dressed in a blue hospital gown, and so far I've been
reinforced by three rounds of oxygen and albuterol. I'm starting to feel
normal again. Drugs have been my lifesaver this time. This is what they
are for. Knowing the toxicity of all chemical drugs, I've already
started thinking about the supplement regime and detox treatments I'll
have when I get out of here, to get all the residue of pharmaceuticals
out of me. I'm hopeful this will be the one and only time I have to
resort to Western drugs.
Remember, whenever you hear an alt-med maven say "Western medicine"
(shades of Bill Maher!), what that alt-med maven is really referring to
is science-based medicine. As for supplements, if they have anything in
them that does anything physiological, they contain drugs. There is no
difference between drugs found in pharmaceuticals and drugs found in
supplements, other than that the drugs found in supplements are
adulterated with all sorts of stuff. There is no magical difference
between the two. They both contain chemicals, and the body responds to
chemicals through its biochemistry. Nothing makes supplements magically
immune to the laws of physics and chemistry. Moreover, "detox"
treatments are completely unnecessary quackery. Somers' body is more
than capable of "detoxing" away those evil "Western" pharmaceuticals
through its own amazing abilities. Somers appears to think that
"Western" pharmaceuticals somehow leave their taint behind. Maybe she
thinks the proteins in her body have a "memory" in the same way that
homeopaths claim that water has "memory" and that the taint has to be
somehow purged, just as a Catholic believes that confession purges sins
or certain Muslim sects think that self-flagellation will purge them of
their evil. It really is religious thinking, that Somers was somehow
"contaminated" by "Western" pharmaceuticals and needs to have that
"contamination" removed.
But I digress. So what did the CT scan find? This, apparently:
We have very bad news," he continued. My heart started pounding,
like it was jumping out of my chest. "You have a mass in your lung; it
looks like the cancer has metastasized to your liver. We don't know what
is wrong with your liver, but it is so enlarged that it is filling your
entire abdomen. You have so many tumors in your chest we can't count
them, and they all have masses in them, and you have a blood clot, and
you have pneumonia. So we are going to check you into the hospital and
start treating the blood clot because that will kill you first."
Now, we already know that Somers did not, in fact, have cancer. I'll get
to that shortly. In the meantime, let's take a look at what she says
about her oncologist:
The oncologist comes into my room. He has the bedside manner of a
moose: no compassion, no tenderness, no cautious approach. He sits in
the chair with his arms folded defensively.
"You've got cancer. I just looked at your CAT scan and it's
everywhere," he says matter-of-factly.
"Everywhere?" I ask, stunned. "Everywhere?"
"Everywhere," he states, like he's telling me he got tickets to the
Lakers game. "Your lungs, your liver, tumors around your heart ... I've
never seen so much cancer."
So the oncologist who saw Somers first was a world-class dick. It's
quite possible. Not every doctor has a good bedside manner, and some
have a horrendous bedside manner. Sadly, some of them are oncologists,
even though if there's a specialty that really needs a good bedside
manner, it's that of medical oncologist. On the other hand, I just
learned again not too long ago that the oncologist may not have been as
bad as that, if my recent experience was any indication. A while back, I
saw a patient with breast cancer in her hospital room, a woman I had
operated on. I thought I had calmly laid out the situation, reassured
her that her tumor was treatable, and told her that she might not need
chemotherapy. About an hour later I got a frantic page from the floor.
The patient was in tears, and the family was in an uproar. I don't know
how I had done it, but I had somehow given this patient the impression
that her situation was hopeless. When her family arrived to take her
home she was crying. Apparently she had interpreted my telling her that
she might not need chemotherapy (mainly because of her age and tumor
characteristics) as telling her that it was pointless to treat her more.
I relearned a valuable lesson that day, one I need to relearn
occasionally, unfortunately, namely that patients don't always interpret
what I tell them the way I think they will and that sometimes how I view
a conversation may be very different than how the patient viewed the
conversation. Fortunately, I was able to reassure everyone and correct
the misconceptions that had been left, but I did not feel too good about
my bedside manner that day. In fact, I felt for a while like the worst
doctor in the world.
On the other hand, let's just assume that Somers' oncologist was a
flaming asshole. it's the worst case for "Western medicine" and it is
not as uncommon as I'd like to admit. Besides, it's easier. In that
case, I'd say, "So what?" I'm sorry that her oncologist was a jerk.
There's no excuse for that. However, one nasty doctor does not
invalidate "Western medicine," nor does the occurrence of a misdiagnosis.
In any case, it's quite possible that there was a bit of Somers hearing
things one way when her doctors weren't telling it the way she
interpreted them as telling her. The reason I say that is because she
goes on and on about how, over six days, doctors told her she needed
chemotherapy, something that seemed quite unlikely to me when I read the
story. The reason is that, in general, oncologists are very reluctant to
give chemotherapy to someone without a definite tissue diagnosis proving
that they have cancer, be it metastatic cancer or any cancer. This is
doubly true in a case like what Somers describes in her book. Widespread
cancer could be a recurrence of her breast cancer (especially given
Somers' proclivity to pump herself full of "bioidentical hormones" after
having been treated for an estrogen receptor-positive cancer), but in a
63-year-old woman, there are lots of other possible malignancies. What
would be used for breast cancer might not work very well against, say,
colon cancer or ovarian cancer, another likely possibility. Another
reason I seriously question whether doctors were pushing hard for
chemotherapy in a mere six days is because, if they truly thought she
had such a massively widespread recurrence of her breast cancer,
particularly an estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer, all treatment
would be palliative. Consequently, the first rule is to do as little as
possible to relieve symptoms. Most likely, an oncologist would have
chosen to treat Somers first with an anti-estrogen drug, probably an
aromatase inhibitor (no Tamoxifen if she had blood clots causing that
much trouble!) and then seen how she did. Chemotherapy would be reserved
for the case in which antiestrogen therapy failed. It might not even be
used at all if the likelihood of success is tiny; in such cases, hospice
would be recommended.
But the first thing that any competent oncologist would demand is a
tissue diagnosis, either from a needle biopsy or other tissue, to prove
that there was cancer and to identify the type of cancer, so that the
correct chemotherapy could chosen. As I said, there's something very
fishy about Somers' story. It just doesn't add up very well. What I
suspect to have happened is that perhaps the oncologist did have a
conversation about a probable need for chemotherapy, and, like my
conversation with my postoperative patient, Somers saw the conversation
differently from how her doctors did. She probably viewed various "what
if" conversations or "if this is recurrent breast cancer, then you will
need this" conversations as "pressuring" her to take chemotherapy. If
her oncologist wasn't particularly warm and fuzzy and patient, she might
have interpreted his recommendations that way even more.
Ultimately, Somers did get a biopsy. She describes it in her interview
above, "They cut into my neck and went in and took a piece of my lung, a
piece of one of the so-called tumors around my heart turned out it was
not cancer at all."
So what was it? Well, as I said before, I guess I'll have to wait until
the book arrives to find out. My first guess, though, was sarcoidosis,
likely with a pneumonia complicating it. Even though she's on the old
side for a first presentation of sarcoidosis, which usually hits people
between 20-40, in retrospect Somers' presentation was pretty classic, as
this article shows:
What are symptoms of sarcoidosis?
Shortness of breath (dyspnea) and a cough that won't go away can be
among the first symptoms of sarcoidosis. But sarcoidosis can also show
up suddenly with the appearance of skin rashes. Red bumps (erythema
nodosum) on the face, arms, or shins and inflammation of the eyes are
also common symptoms.
It is not unusual, however, for sarcoidosis symptoms to be more
general. Weight loss, fatigue, night sweats, fever, or just an overall
feeling of ill health can also be clues to the disease.
Those tumors around Somers' heart? They were probably enlarged hilar
lymph nodes, which are classic for sarcoidosis, which can also be
associated with shortness of breath. I could, of course, be wrong. I'll
find out soon enough. Or maybe not. It wouldn't surprise me if Somers
never tells her readers exactly what she had--or even knows exactly what
she had. From what I can gather she appears to have had a blood clot,
which made the E.R. docs worry about a pulmonary embolus, and she had
all these masses "around her heart," as well as an enlarged liver.
Sarcoidosis may account for it, but there are certainly other
possibilities to account for the apparent misdiagnosis.In the meantime,
while I await the arrival of Knockout (of my neurons), perhaps my
internal medicine colleagues could weigh in on the differential
diagnosis of Somers' presentation as reported in her book. As I
sometimes say with false modesty, I'm just a dumb surgeon.
Whatever Somers had, I guess we can blame an oncologist with a bad
bedside manner, doctors too quick to leap in and tell her she had
widespread metastatic cancer before getting a tissue diagnosis, and what
appears to be an understandable (at least initially) misdiagnosis for
her latest book. Of all the people this sort of thing had to happen to,
it had to happen to someone who is so prone to pseudoscience that she
saw this all as a validation that her distrust of "Western medicine"
must be right and that all those "brave maverick doctors" who are
allegedly "curing cancer" must be right. The result is a book that
lionizes quacks like Nicholas Gonzalez under the guise of bringing
"hope" to cancer patients.
I'm beginning to ask myself if I really want to go through with my
project of blogging this book, but I'll steel myself up and do
it--again, at least as long as my sanity can handle it. Hopefully I'll
finish my project by Thanksgiving. The things I do for my readers. Or to
my readers. I haven't quite made up my mind about that.
ADDENDUM: Don't forget, send some "inconvenient questions" to Larry King
Live. Somers is going to be appearing on the show on Friday night. Chief
among them: Will you release some of your medical records or give your
physicians permission to speak about your diagnosis and treatment? My
guess is that what Somers understood of her treatment and diagnosis is
related to her actual diagnosis and treatment mainly by coincidence.
--
"If you can, tell me something happy."
- Marybones
Gracenote
> In article <hc724p02...@drn.newsguy.com>,
>
> Twitchell <Twitchell_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/10/27/2009-10-27_suzanne_somer...
> _cancer_s.php
>
> Suzanne Somers' fishy "whole body cancer" scare
>
> Category: Alternative medicine € Cancer € Medicine € Quackery
> Posted on: October 22, 2009 9:30 AM, by Orac
>
> I hadn't planned on writing about Suzanne Somers again so soon. After
> all, I haven't yet received the promotional copy of her book (Knockout:
> Interviews with Doctors Who Are Curing Cancer--And How to Prevent
> Getting It in the First Place) that a most generous reader has sent to
> me, and I didn't think I'd have a chance until a few days after the book
> arrived. However, something's been bothering me since yesterday's post,
> and it's bothering me enough that I think it deserves a followup post of
> its own. I alluded to it briefly during part of my post, but I really
> think it's something to be explored in a little more depth, particularly
> since Chapter 1 of Knockout is available online. Also, look again (if
> you can stand it) or for the first time at Somers' interview with Ann
> Curry:
Snipped for space
Nice post and so refreshing to hear from someone with some sense.
earthage
> In article <hc724...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> Twitchell <Twitchel...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/10/27/2009-10-27_suzanne_somers_reveals
> > _she_was_misdiagnosed_with_fullbody_cancer.html
> >
> > There was a time when Suzanne Somers thought she only had days to live.
> >
> > In her new book, �Knockout: Interviews with Doctors Who are Curing Cancer and
> > How to Prevent Getting It,� the �Three�s Company� actress talks about the
> > fear
> > she lived with after being misdiagnosed with �full-body cancer.�
> >
> > �For six days, six doctors confirmed I had inoperable cancer. I went into
> > that
> > valley of fear. I saw my death, it was horrible,� Somers told CBS' "Early
> > Show."
> >
Bernie Mac had sarcoidosis, and I remember reading at the time of his
death (from pneumonia) that the disease is more common among African-
Americans than white Americans.