When I was first diagnosed with breast cancer, my doctors told me to be very careful of information found on line other than at the American Cancer Society's website (www.cancer.org) and at Breast Cancer.org (www.breastcancer.org). If I need information, I still refer to these sites.
The ACS's website is full of clinical information on all types of cancer in a somewhat dry, factual presentation. Breastcancer.org has clips of the latest news in the breast cancer world, with little translations on what it means to the average person. It also has a wealth of information on many facets of breast cancer diagnosis and treatment.
But today I found a piece of non-information on their home page: Their founder was diagnosed with breast cancer. She posted a video about her breast cancer journey. It's a non-message. She does not say what her treatment was - we can infer that it did not include chemotherapy because she has her hair - she just says that it was a personal treatment plan that was specific to her, and it wouldn't apply to anyone else, so she wasn't going to tell us.
My first thought at this non-message is that she followed a treatment plan that she would not endorse on her website. The way she addresses it, by saying that it was specific to her and therefore she wasn't going to share it because it wouldn't apply to anyone else, destroys some of the credibility of her website. If it was that personal and is the first in a wave of truly personalized medicine, wouldn't it be appropriate to talk about it? I have no idea what it was, but I find it evasive, and I find the evasiveness of her lack of an answer a detraction from the depth of her website.
Its a non-message and a non-answer that should be explained in full. This is a missed opportunity to explain how, from the founder's point of view, that now she is in the same boat as those she has tried to help over the years. A missed opportunity and reduced credibility as well.