Krebsforum Lazarus

Bitte loggen sie sich ein oder registrieren sie sich.

Einloggen mit Benutzername, Passwort und Sitzungslänge
Erweiterte Suche  

Autor Thema: Artikel der Washington Post aufgeflogen  (Gelesen 2045 mal)

Glückspilz

  • Globaler Moderator
  • Held Mitglied
  • *****
  • Beiträge: 848
Artikel der Washington Post aufgeflogen
« am: 19. März 2011, 16:55:06 »

Die Washington Post ist eine Berühmtheit. Leider ist nicht alles Gold, was glänzt. Die Washington Post hat die Finger drin in Sachen, wo ich es nicht für möglich gehalten hätte. Den folgenden Artikel des Gawker mitsamt den Kommentaren würde ich normalerweise nicht einfach so kopieren. Ich mache aber eine Ausnahme, weil man hier hier die Kulissen sehen kann. Es ist eben alles ganz anders als man denkt...

http://gawker.com/#!5782069/heres-a-washington-post-story-with-all-the-editors-notes-in-it

[*QUOTE*]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gawker
58,467 views, Mar 15, 2011 10:02 AM
 
mistakes
Here’s a Washington Post Story With All the Editor’s Notes In It
 

 Hamilton Nolan — If you spend more than five minutes talking to an editor, you're sure to hear about how some story or other was a total piece of shit before said editor got his hands on it. Now you can judge for yourself! The Washington Post mistakenly posted this health story by Laura Ungar online with ALL OF THE EDITOR'S ALL-CAPS NOTES INCLUDED. [The final version of the story hasn't been published yet.] We've pasted it below in case it gets pulled. Editors make typos, too! Kill them!

[Zitatanfang]
-........................................................................................................
By Laura Ungar Special to The Washington Post
Monday, March 14, 2011; 4:58 PM

Tamika Felder figured she was young and healthy and could skip getting Pap smears for a few years when her job didn't offer health insurance.

She was wrong.

In 2001, at 25 years old, the television producer from Upper Marlboro, Md. was diagnosed with cervical cancer and needed a hysterectomy, chemotherapy and radiation. She was left unable to bear children.

"I didn't want to lose my womb. I didn't want to lose my fertility. But I was tossed into this world of cancer," said Felder, now 35. "It changes you in such a profound way. You have to rebuild your whole life." THE QUOTE YOU NEED HERE, GIVEN THE REST OF THE PIECE, IS ABOUT HOW SHE COULDN'T AFFORD THE HEALTH INSURANCE. DID SHE NOT HAVE A PAP SMEAR OR DID SHE ALSO STOP SEEING HER OB/GYN? IF IT'S THE FORMER SHE SHOULD SAY HOW SHE WENT TO THE OB/GYN BUT DECLINEE THE PAP SMEAR BECAUSE IT WAS TOO MUCH AND SHE FIGURED SHE WAS YOUNG SHE'D BE FINE.

THEN THE NEXT GRAF COULD BE THE QUOTE YOU USE ABOVE.

THIS GRAF SENTENCE NEEDS TO BE TWEAKED. Each year, about 12,000 U.S. women get cervical cancer and (ANOTHER? OR IS THIS PART OF THE 12,000) 4,000 die. YET DOCTORS VIEW CERVICAL CANCER AS A disease THAT WITH PROPER SCREENING can easily be prevented and treated. Pre-cancerous lesions and early cancer are easily detected through screening. Lesions can be removed in a minimally-invasive procedure before they turn into cancer. And there's a vaccine against the sexually transmitted virus that causes most cervical cancer cases.

HOW ABOUT: BUT FELDER'S CASE IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF WHY THIS MOSTLY CURABLE DISEASE IS STILL A THREAT/IS STILL KILING PEOPLE, DOCTORS SAY. TOO OFTEN WOMEN WHO DON'T HAVE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE OR THOSE WHO,HAVE not HEARD ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF REGULAR SCREENINGS—DESPITE YEARS OF PUBLIC CAMPAIGNS—DISCOVER THE PROBLEM WHEN THE DISEASE HAS ALREADY PROGRESSED TOO FAR .

YOU NEED A GENERAL QUOTE HERE TO SUPPORT THE GRAF ABOVE. THE KRISHNAN QUOTE BELOW IS TOO SPECIFIC. YOU NEED SOMETHIGN THAT SAYS: THIS IS A PREVENTABLE DISEASE, BUT WHEN PEOPLE DON'T OR CAN'T GET SCREENING, IT BECOMES A DEADLY ONE.

I THINK THE STATS IN THE NEXT GRAF ARE CONFUSING AND UNPERSUASIVE BECAUSE YOU'RE MAKING BROAD ASSUMPTIONS (BLACKS ARE POOR FOR ONE) AND ASSERTIONS THAT YOU DON'T BACK UP FOR READERS. I THINK WHAT YOU REALLY NEED ARE STATS THAT SHOW THAT WHERE THE POVERTY LEVEL IS HIGHER, THERE IS A CLEAR RISE IN CERVICAL CANCER THAT DOCTORS ATTRIBUTE TO LACK OF GOOD HEALTH CARE. yOU COULD ATTRIBUTE THIS TO A STUDY OR THE CDC OR WHATEVER. AND THEN MAYBE STILL ADD: FOR INSTANCE, IN APPALACHIA, WHERE THE INCOME LEVEL IS XXX, THE RATE IS ETC...

(((ACCORDING TO XXX, rates of disease are highest in communities. African American women like Felder, get cervical cancer at a rate of 10.1 per 100,000, 25 percent higher than the national average; they die at a rate of 4.4 per 100,000, 83 percent higher than the national average. And in the Appalachian region of Kentucky, one of the hardest-hit IN WHAT WAY? locales, women in general get the disease at a rate 33 percent higher than the national average and die at a rate 37 percent higher. Some women there go decades without getting screened SAYS WHO?)))

Shobha Krishnan, a gynecologist at Columbia University's Barnard Health Services and president of the Global Initiative Against HPV and Cervical Cancer, SAYS THE BEST WAY TO REDUCE CERVICAL CANCER RATES WOULD BE BY bringing help, screening and education to vulnerable women instead of waiting for them to seek it out. "There are uninsured and underinsured who lack access to care. There are people living in rural areas without access to care....If we can adapt what we do in the developing world, we might make more progress. Four thousand deaths is four thousand too many."

Subhead

Cervical cancer used to be a much bigger scourge in America. In 1973, federal statistics show, the incidence rate was 14.2 per 100,000. YOU NEED SOMETHING HERE LIKE: THE RATE FELL BY ALMOST HALF AFTER DOCTORS BEGAN ROUTINELY PERFORMING PAP SMEARS, A QUICK SCRAPING OFF OF VAGINAL CELLS WHICH ARE THEN EXAMINED FOR ABNORMAL CHANGES, WHEN WOMEN CAME IN FOR ANNUAL GYNECOLOGICAL EXAMS (HOW COME THEY DID THIS? WHAT'S THE HISTORY OF PAP SMEARS? DID THEY GET EASIER TO DO OR WAS THEIR SOME STUDY THAT FIGURED OUT THAT PAP SMEARS WOULD REALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE). AS A RESULT, THE RATE FELL TO 8.1 per 100,000 in 2003-07.

Seven in 10 cases OF CERVICAL CANCER are caused by two types of the sexually-transmitted viruses, the human papillomavirus, or HPV. Roughly half of all sexually-active people get HPV at some point in their lives, but relatively few develop pre-cancer or cancer. DO THEY KNOW WHY?For those who do, it's typically slow-growing, AND THERE EASILY DETECTABLE BEFORE THEY HAVE BECOME DANGEROUS BY ANNUALPAP SMEARS.

A 2008 CDC survey said about 83 percent of American women 18 and older got a Pap smear within the previous three years. Studies show that 50 percent to 70 percent of women who develop cervical cancer haven't had a Pap test in at least five years. CAN YOU GIVE ME A URL TO HYPERLINK TO FOR THIS?

A. Bennett Jenson, a University of Louisville physician who has researched cervical cancer for decades and helped invent the HPV vaccine THAT IS NOW RECOMMENDED FOR TEENAGE GIRLS AND BOYS?....., said even though the disease spreads slowly, it's important to get yearly Pap smears. The tests have a 30 percent false-negative rate, he said, meaning abnormalities can be missed 30 PERCENT OF THE TIME THEY COME UP WRONG??. He said YOUNGER women canSHOULD?? also protect themselves by getting vaccinated against HPV before becoming sexually active, and ALL WOMEN SHOULD CONSIDER getting HPV tests while sexually active. SO LET ME MAKE SURE I GET THIS: PEOPLE SHOULD GET PAP SMEARS AND HPV TESTS? WHY HPV TESTS WHEN RELATIVELY FEW PEOPLE WHO ARE INFECTED WITH HPV ACTUALLY GET CERVICAL CANCER. THAT SEEMS LIKE UNNECESSARY AND EXPENSIVE TESTING IN THIS DAY AND AGE.... ALSO, WHICH OF THESE TESTS ARE COVERED BY INSURANCE. i THINK THE VACCINE IS NOT, RIGHT?

OF COURSE FOR WOMEN WHO DO NOT HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE OR FOR WHOM THE COSTS OF THESE TESTS, EVEN WITH THE INSURANCE, ARE TOO HIGH, THESE SUGGETIONS MAY BE DIFFICULT TO FOLLOW. HOWEVER, There are programs that can help, including the CDC's National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, which screens under-served WHAT DOES UNDERSERVED MEAN women.

Still, "there are a lot of people who fall through the cracks," said Suzy Madden, who works with women in HEALTH/SUPPORT/WHATEVER program in rural Kentucky WHERE RATES OF CERVICAL CANCER ARE PARTICULARLY HIGH BECAUSE OF LACK OF PREVENTATIVE SCREENING. said. "They make too much to qualify, but not enough to pay for a doctor visit themselves."

In Felder's case, said she got Pap smears regularly in college WHEN COVERED BY HER SCHOOL HEALTH PLAN? OR HER MOTHER'S?. But when she went off her mother's insurance, she skipped screenings for three years SINCE THEY COST XXX. She wasn't too worried when she began having bad menstrual cramps and lower back pain. After landing a full-time job with insurance she went in for a REGULAR GYNECOLOGICAL CHECKUP.. She could hardly believe the cancer diagnosis, and sought several other opinions.

"I was thinking I was in some bad movie," she said.

Subhead

Felder said three things would have made a difference to her—being better educated about cervical cancer and its causes, having insurance at a critical time, and not taking chances with her health because she felt young and invincible.

But experts said changing attitudes, getting health messages out to everyone, and especially improving access to health care are some of the thorniest challenges in health care.

Krishnan said the new health-care law should eventually mean fewer uninsured women.

"We hope that...providing coverage for millions more will reduce the number of cervical cancer cases in this country," she said.

Felder is committed to doing her part. In 2005, she started a nonprofit group called Tamika & Friends, which seeks to raise awareness of cervical cancer and its link to HPV.

"I don't know if we'll ever eliminate it completely. But I think we can lower it," Felder said. "This is a preventable cancer."

THIS SHOULD BE IN THE SIDEBAR: According to the CDC, about 33 million doses of Gardasil were distributed nationally as of mid-February, and 18,354 reports were made to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System about problems following inoculation. Most involved problems such s fainting and pain at the injection site that were not considered serious, but 8 percent were considered serious, involving problems such as blood clots and Guillain-Barré syndrome. The CDC stressed that problems reported after the shots may or may not have been caused by them, and recommends vaccination.

"If everyone had the vaccine, that would stamp it out," Jenson said. "We could cure it like polio."

Felder agreed the problem is daunting, but said she's also committed to doing her part. In 2005, she started a nonprofit group called Tamika & Friends, which seeks to raise awareness of cervical cancer and its link to HPV.

"I don't know if we'll ever eliminate it completely. But I think we can lower it," Felder said. "This is a preventable cancer."

Laura Ungar is the medical writer with The Courier-Journal in Louisville, Ky.
-........................................................................................................
[Zitatende]



Discussion Threads
Featured
All
Start a new thread
 Tremonius
Tue 15 Mar 2011 11:29 AM  
"Each year, about 12,000 U.S. women get cervical cancer and (ANOTHER? OR IS THIS PART OF THE 12,000) 4,000 die.'"

Is Sulzy XVI an editor now? Some die from the disease without becoming sick from it? Reminds me of the headline introducing Duke Mantee in Petrified Forest about "20 killed, 4 mortally wounded!"
Edited by Tremonius at 03/15/11 11:30 AM
 mitchell6 @Tremonius approved by
Tue 15 Mar 2011 12:03 PM  
Nope. It's unclear. Read it again and think about it. And again, and as many times as necessary.
 brotherparish @Tremonius
Tue 15 Mar 2011 12:19 PM  
12,000 are diagnosed every year; 4,000 die every year. The editor is asking: Do all 4,000 die in the same year in which they are diagnosed?

You're right that it's a stupid question, but not for the reason you suggest. The article says cervical cancer progresses slowly, so almost certainly, some of those who die had had been diagnosed more than a year before their deaths.

The biggest story seems to be missed by both the writer and the editor: The tests have a 30 percent false-negative rate.
 gonzobiology @Tremonius promoted by Tremonius
Tue 15 Mar 2011 3:21 PM  
+1 for the Petrified Forest reference.
 Tremonius @mitchell6
Tue 15 Mar 2011 5:20 PM  
Maybe it would help if you point out how anybody can die from cervical cancer without being of the group which catches it. Or maybe you are reading it as possibly "...and 4,000 die from auto accidents."

It is a quibble without a quandry, as my old editor used to say.
 Tremonius @brotherparish
Tue 15 Mar 2011 5:23 PM  
That's very clearly not what the edit means. She is asking: ANOTHER 4,000? OR IS THIS PART OF THE 12,000?

Readers are most often the ones who need editing.
 Tremonius @gonzobiology
Tue 15 Mar 2011 5:27 PM  
You should've been along, then, on that canoe trip that year along the Red River. The banks are sand, and the peanut fields up above fall into the river lots. So the farmers often push junked autos off the banks to form an artificial reef for another season or two. So I looked at a couple of old rusty wrecks, said, "Hey, look, Duke Mantee!"
 brotherparish @Tremonius
Tue 15 Mar 2011 5:31 PM  
That's why I wrote: "You're right that it's a stupid question." The editor misunderstood the reporting.

The reporter is describing two groups:
Group 1 is the 12,000 that are diagnosed with cervical cancer each year.
Group 2 is the 4,000 who die of cervical cancer each year.

The editor asked if the second group is part of the first, or separate. I commented that the question is stupid: Some of those 4,000 died within a year of being diagnosed, and some died after more time had passed.
 brotherparish @Tremonius
Tue 15 Mar 2011 5:33 PM  
"4,000 die" = "4,000 die of cervical cancer."

The editor understands this.

What the editor wants to know is: Are all cervical cancer fatalities dying within one year of diagnosis?"
Edited by brotherparish at 03/15/11 5:39 PM
 roomba001 @brotherparish promoted by brotherparish
Tue 15 Mar 2011 6:03 PM  
Actually, I was thinking it was
"4000 of them[12,000 diagnosed] die".
I do agree though that it needs to be clearer.
 brotherparish @roomba001
Tue 15 Mar 2011 6:22 PM  
Yeah, the editor is right to ask for clarification.

Think of it this way:

Jane is diagnosed in 1996. She is one of 12,000 women diagnosed with cervical cancer in 1996.

Jane dies in 1998. So she is NOT one of the 4,000 women who died of cervical cancer in 1996.
 tech42er @Tremonius promoted by brotherparish
Tue 15 Mar 2011 7:42 PM  
You can die of cervical cancer in a given year without being in the group that catches it in that given year. (In fact, given that cervical cancer is not a fast killer, most of the 4,000 who die each year are probably not among the 12,000 who are diagnosed each year.) Does that make sense?
 BiBiVirtue @brotherparish
Wed 16 Mar 2011 12:03 PM  
That's not what the editor is asking. He's/She's asking whether of the 12,000 women that are diagnosed each year 4,000 die or whether 16,000 women are diagnosed each year and 4,000 of them die.
 Tremonius @tech42er
Wed 16 Mar 2011 12:25 PM  
You can die of cervical cancer in a given year without being in the group that catches it in that given year.

I'm sure that's a great relief to the deceased, but - I'm wondering what difference it makes? I mean, were I to say, "Worldwide, 20 million are diagnosed with lung cancer from smoking each year, and 4 million die." Would it be a huge boost for RJ Reynolds that some of the 4 million die the year after diagnosis? Are the statistics even affected by the revelation?

It sounds to me like an episode of Beckmania, in which he attempts to discredit the cervical cancer danger each year (in support of christianinnies who withhold the antidote from their daughters, hoping they die horribly if they embarrass them at church and all) IS FATALLY FLAWED BECAUSE IT DOESN'T DISTINGUISH THE DIAGNOSED FROM THE DEAD!

As Troilus said, 'Tis an argument too starved for my sword.
 brotherparish @BiBiVirtue
Wed 16 Mar 2011 12:58 PM  
The editor never questions the "12,000 diagnosed in any given year" statistic. He/she never asks "Don't you mean 16,000?"

12,000 are diagnosed every year.
4,000 die every year.
Both statements are true as is.

The editor is asking: What's the relationship between the two groups?
 brotherparish @Tremonius
Wed 16 Mar 2011 1:12 PM  
Are the statistics even affected by the revelation?

They are.

If you say that in 2010, 12,000 women were diagnosed, and in that same year, 4,000 of those 12,000 women died, you are saying:

1. That cervical cancer kills very quickly. That is wrong. This article, like tons of others, makes clear that it is a SLOW-progressing disease.

2. That cervical cancer has a mortality rate of 33 percent (4,000 of 12,000 diagnosed). The actual figure may be very different. The length of time it takes for a disease to become fatal affects the mortality rate. An extreme example: Prostate cancer is often very slow in progression. So a man diagnosed at 60 could very well die of something completely unrelated at 75. That reduces prostate cancer's mortality rate, relative to a very fast-acting cancer, such as liver or pancreatic cancer, which people are very unlikely to live with for years.
Edited by brotherparish at 03/16/11 1:14 PM
 BiBiVirtue @brotherparish
Thu 17 Mar 2011 8:37 AM  
That's the point of the correction, it's an ambiguous statement the way it stands. It could mean, 12,000 are diagnosed and out of those 12,000 4,000 die. Or it could mean, 12,000 are diagnosed and an additional 4,000 die. Which is what I said.
 brotherparish @BiBiVirtue
Thu 17 Mar 2011 7:59 PM  
What you said was:

"or whether 16,000 women are diagnosed each year..."

As for the 4,000 who die: There's a third possibility:
SOME were diagnosed in the same year they died;
OTHERS were diagnosed more than a year earlier.
Edited by brotherparish at 03/17/11 8:08 PM
See 1 more reply by PushyGalore

login
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[*/QUOTE*]


Was in deutschen Redaktionen abgeht, auch bei den "renommierten"... da kann Einem nur schlecht werden...
Gespeichert
Würde ich von Licht leben,
müßte ich grün sein.