The Webster Dictionary lists this word as one indicating the act of providing information which is incorrect, untrue or leading to a mistaken action.

Misinformation of the public seems to be the main "pièce de résistance" utilized today, to maintain power and control; this applies to every aspect of our lives, but especially to the field of medical care, probably more so than to any other situation.

The first question coming to mind would be: Why is this happening?

Based on our direct experience, our conclusion has been that for far too long the professionals in the medical establishment have been assumed to be the only members of society possessing an education; and with that mental attitude, they have felt fully at ease in the process of providing any answer that sounded plausible to inquiring patients, in order to obtain the desired response from the curious subjects, independently from its veracity.

The underlying assumption that the listeners couldn't possibly understand nor evaluate the validity of the answers, displays an attitude which might have been unchallenged in the American frontier, during pioneering times, but it is bordering the ridiculous in a time when most people dwell in cyberspace.

The next question would be: What kind of medical misinformation are we targeting at this time? Unfortunately for all of us, the misinformation covers both the diagnosis process and the treatment selection stage. Although in some cases a diagnosis blunder is derived from pure lack of knowledge, in many other circumstances it originates from wishful thinking and personal interest of the attending physician. At this point, part of the public will respond with extreme indignation and invoke the Hippocratic Oath; still, every day too many patients have their health conditions exaggerated in order to justify extreme solutions.

Although this happens in any medical specialty, it seems to happen with higher frequency and go totally unchecked in the field of oncology. It is a case of misinformation every time a breast cancer patient is instructed that she must have a mammogram before she can have an ultrasound; the same applies in the case of a patient who is informed that an ultrasound with color Doppler does not apply to post cancer treatment evaluation. It is also a case of misinformation when a breast cancer patient is assured that a double mastectomy will stop reoccurrences; the same goes for the statement that chemotherapy can be 80% effective.

It again constitutes misinformation of the public the statement that a biopsy can establish the effectiveness of Photo-Dynamic Therapy, in both its standard or advanced form (i.e. L.I.E.S.H. Therapy), as well as determine the outcome of Hyperthermia treatment. It is also a huge misinformation of the public the suggestion that PET scans and MRIs are the "Gold Standard" in cancer evaluation, independently from the treatment received. The same goes for the frequent and erroneous diagnosis of infection, referring to what is obviously an immune response. Finally, let's not forget the total denial of scientific principles when an oncologist fails to recognize tissue in advanced stage of necrosis and provides to the public inexcusable misinformation by labeling what he sees as a "fungoid" tumor.

In conclusion, the question is: What can the public do to defend itself and avoid drowning in this ocean of misinformation? First, obtain two or three different opinions from physicians of various specialties; then plunge into cyberspace, collect all the available information, and after summarizing the facts; and personally arrive to a conclusion, by making an educated decision independently from external pressures.