Entertainers vs the REAL World: Two Very Different Journeys

Fuckin’ entertainers – always gravitating where the money is, but hardly giving a shit about their “targeted” audience. They contribute to absolutely nothing on a humanitarian scale unless it’s strategically drawn out by their agent and publicist, and sealed with a kiss by way of a NDA, or “gag order” (kindly renamed by Kathy Griffin). They habitually patronize their fanbase by promoting products, services, and platforms that are cynical in nature yet society doesn’t stop to ask questions.

As usual, I have to be the voice of reason yet again.

Am I really to believe that a regimen of pilates and a strict vegan diet really gave you all that ass with peculiar muscle placements?

Entertainers are in the business of pimping products, services, and platforms. So why should it stop at cancer?

I will tell you why: the celebrity version of “cancer journey” doesn’t match, nor does it come anywhere close to, a cancer journey that takes hold in the REAL world. We are talking about two very different journeys going in opposite directions.

So when I was channel surfing one day, I stumbled upon Sandra Lee’s documentary about her cancer “journey.” I had a strange feeling I was going to be introduced to the glossy, pretty version of cancer typically found in mainstream awareness campaigns. I tuned in anyway, just for the off chance I might be privy to a different perspective. In other words, I gave her the benefit of the doubt.

I watched this documentary with the hope that I would learn something new.

I did. I learned:

  • Sandra Lee’s boyfriend is Andrew Cuomo, governor of New York.
  • Sandra Lee sucking Cuomo’s dick opens a world of resources that is not typically available for patients on a smaller scale.
  • She avoided chemotherapy altogether. At least on camera.

I was not aware the Lee and Cuomo were an item. The moment I heard that, my reaction was similar to this:

Bitch, I can’t even take you seriously right now.

I was eager to find out why Ms. Lee opted out of chemotherapy, but that was never introduced. I am willing to bet my house that chemotherapy was suggested as a “precaution,” by doctors to keep the cancer at bay. Never mentioned. I had an awful feeling that a significant part of her “journey” was edited out for the purpose of promoting cancer screening.

Or maybe there is more to the story and that she did undergo chemotherapy. If that’s the case, she’s portraying only a partial journey for the purpose of endorsements. That doesn’t make me feel better, and she ought to rename her documentary, A Partial Cancer Journey, And Yay Screening!

Speaking of screening, allow me to provide a personal testimonial about my mother in law and mammograms:

My mother in law was DILIGENT with her health care. The moment she turned a certain age, she got routine mammograms on an annual basis. Never smoked a day in her life. A genuine woman of God. She put the needs of others before her own. She was the exclusive caretaker of her husband after he suffered a stroke and became paralyzed. She was his best friend and caretaker for over 25 years. With so much responsibilities as wife and caretaker, she remained proactive with all the necessary screening, including mammograms, and any other relevant tests. She was as vigorous with her own health as much as she was vigorous with tending to the needs of her husband. “I have to be able to take care of myself so I can take care of him!” she would say.

Then one day, she found a lump. Further tests would ensue and would later confirm the bad news. All the previous testing never mattered. She still succumbed to a breast cancer diagnosis. She underwent toxic chemotherapy (twice a week) and radiation. It was as if the chemotherapy accelerated the disease. She died two years after the initial diagnosis.

So, going back to Sandra Lee: I want to know which medical corporation paid her to endorse the testing mechanisms for cancer.

You see, when you tell me you’ve been on a cancer journey, this is what I am imagining:

  • Your physical/mammogram/colonscopy revealed that your doctor has some “bad news.”
  • Tests to follow that includes sticking a needle in the problem area (biopsy).
  • Wait a week (or more) that confirms the bad news
  • You are appointed to an oncologist
  • Your oncologist give you an treatment plan
  • You have to undergo some bullshit orientation about what to expect (or lack thereof) during your treatment.
  • You have to relay the bad news to the people you cherish the most. That, in itself, is heartbreaking.
  • Surgery
  • Chemotherapy, because the surgeon couldn’t get all the cancer or the treatment is a precaution
  • All the barbaric side effects
  • Radiation, in some cases
  • Re-occuring scans, aka “Scanxiety.”

Celebrities who attempt at being “relatable” will automatically lose points on the sympathy scale. More often than not, being an “advocate” also means entertainers are given a world of publicity and monetary opportunities not typically available for everyday cancer patients. While I can understand that a part of her femininity was taken away, I get the feeling we’re not seeing the whole story.  I’m not suggesting the masses are entitled to every intricate detail of those moment’s in Lee’s life, but entertainers don’t get the right of undermining the ACTUAL EVENTS of cancer patients just so they can promote screening mechanisms whose outcomes are still up for debate.

Her famous boyfriend has the ability and resources to provide Lee an immaculate quality of life going forward. Cuomo, the same shithead who is now having second thoughts about legalizing marijuana, is a high profile politician who knows how to shift narratives a certain way.

If only Lee would have documented the real questions: why did she opt out of chemotherapy? How often will she have to go for scans? What is the reason for the massive push for screening even though it’s still up for serious debate? Does screening really save lives or are we vulnerable to being over-diagnosed? (that IS a thing).

The fact that Lee never addressed the over-diagnosis issue is making me all the more skeptical over her screening “advocacy.”

When it comes to entertainers, we cannot take what they say at face value. They are NOT like us. Just as politicians work for corporations, entertainers work for the beauty and fashion industries, booze, social platforms, et al. Ergo, we need to be diligent and ask questions. When it comes to healthcare, it is imperative that we’d be our own advocate.




Say hello

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s