Skip to main content

Byrne-out: a tale of two cancer victims.

Today, boys and girls, we have one of my occasional guest columns, this time by a regular who pops in now and then under the name "Frances."

A few prerequisites. First
as is always the case when I present these columnsthey are not to be interpreted as anything beyond "one person's opinion."* I am showcasing the following thoughts not under the guise of presenting universal truth (though I do think they cut pretty close to the heart of the matter, or perhaps in this case the breast of it); I'm showcasing them because I find them interesting and on-message. Second, by their nature, all posts of this type deal in anecdotal evidence. Frances is comparing the plight of one high-profile cancer victim who turned to conventional medicine to the plight of another high-profile cancer victim who turned to The Secret. Bear in mind, however, that in the latter instance, anecdotal evidence of failure carries more weight than in the former instance, because devotees of The Secret, beginning with its creator, claim that its core methods always work. Therefore, in theory, all one need do to refute The Secret is find a single case where its methods didn't work.

That said, I now give the floor to Frances.


Kim Tinkham is the woman who famously said on Oprah that she was stopping all science-based cancer treatment, and was only going to rely on The Secret. Well... the cancer magically got attracted to her again after she thought it was no longer there, and she died last Tuesday:

The last link compares Tinkham's cancer with Elizabeth Edwards' (coincidentally, they died on the same day). Edwards, of course, chose standard science-based medicine. I thought this quote was very telling:
Now, a cancer quack would argue that Edwards "only" lived six years.
And this paragraph about Tinkham was very interesting as well:
The reason [she chose The Secret over standard medicine], I suspect, is that she was the type of person who needed answers. Remember, she wasn't satisfied that conventional doctors couldn't tell her why she got this cancer. Even though conventional doctors could treat it with a fairly high likelihood of success, they could not tell her with 100% certainty the answer to the question: Why me?
Promising certainty, and an all-or-nothing attitude about survival ... I have always said that money isn't the root of all evil nearly to the extent that seeking comfort through black-or-white thinking is. But it's something humans just want, whether it's good for them or not. Emotional junk food.

Meanwhile, the very definition of humanity is complexity along a continuum. We need to teach comfortability with complexity/ambiguity as an essential life skill.

Tinkham was stage III and would have had a 40-70% chance of surviving 10 years with standard treatment. Without standard treatment, however, her chances of surviving 10 years dropped to 3.6%. She ended up surviving four.


I (Salerno) would also add that this site is a treasure-trove of info on cancer incidence, prevention and mortality.

* For that matter, my own thoughts are not to be interpreted as anything beyond one person's opinion, either, except that I can vouch for the time, thought and spadework that informed that opinion, especially on SHAM-related topics.That doesn't mean I expect anyone to buy what I say hook, line and sinker. It just means that I'm usually not speaking off-the-cuff, at least when it comes to the self-help realm.

Popular posts from this blog

Placebo: how a sugar pill became a poison pill. Part 9 of a contintuing saga...

Read Part 8 . In 1921, amid the early tumult of prohibition, a remarkable study took shape in Palo Alto, California. Stanford psychologist Lewis Madison Terman—as serious-looking a man as one is apt to find, with hi s specs, upright bearing and unsmiling mien—would one day be remembered most ly for designing and publishing the final accepted version of the Stanford-Binet IQ test. In '21, however, Terman began work on another project that may have more lasting import for humankind, despite being known today to just a small circle of “longevity wonks.” Terman proposed to track th e lives of 1528 American children from that point on. His subjects, encountered in the course of his study of intelligence, were all 10 years old. Terman himself was 44; he would follow them and their families for the rest of his life, and he obtained from his younger associates a pledge to do the same after he was gone. The goal was to note what kind of longevity the 10-year-olds achieved, and try to deduc

Maybe they figured they'd keep the profits a 'Secret' too?

So now comes word that Drew Heriot, the director behind The Secret DVD, has filed suit against Rhonda Byrne et al, alleging that he was denied his fair share of profits from the project's otherwordly success. It's too soon to know what's really going on here—and it might be a mistake to assume automatically that Heriot's legal claims represent the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. This wouldn't be the first time someone signed on to a project for a negotiated fee, saw the project take off beyond his wildest dreams, then decided he'd sold his soul too cheaply. I knew a struggling writer some years back who agreed to accept a $25,000 flat fee to ghost a book for a Certain Middling Celebrity. After the book became a New York Times bestseller, the ghostwriter filed suit claiming that he'd had a "gentleman's agreement" with the Certain Middling Celebrity that there'd be more money coming—a whole lot more—if the book took off.

Adrift in the parkways of our minds?

Not far from where I write this is a very nice park, a true urban oasis: one of those elongated greenbelts that, together with the sweeping peripheral roads on either side, particularly lends itself to the description "parkway." For the past quarter-century, the park has been inhabited by a gentleman named Earl. It follows th at this gentleman, now nearing 70, bears the whimsical/romantic labe l "Ea r l of the P a rkway." Earl's exploits have been much-chronicled , such that he is today something of a f olk hero, albeit a melancholic one, among those who live in areas adjacent to the park. Strictly speaking, Earl doesn't have to live in the park. He has options. Many would thus say he chooses to live there. (Or, if we prefer not to use terminology that evokes issues of free will vs. determinism, we could posit simply and neutrally that Earl continues to live there, regardl ess of whether alternatives objectively exist.) You might say that based on that de