Cancer is a major global health concern. In Kenya, it is the third leading cause of death after infectious and cardiovascular diseases.
According to GLOBOCAN estimates, in 2020 the country’s annual incidence of cancer was 42,116 with 27,092 reported deaths. The numbers could be higher now.
Cancer does not just impact the physical health of a patient, but their financial well-being as well. The long and expensive treatment usually leaves families destitute as they put all available resources toward their kin’s treatment. The survival rates are low, and this deals a double blow to the affected families.
Because cancer affects so many people, any information particularly about its treatment will be devoured with keen interest. Citizen TV’s Gatete Njoroge did a story on August 31, 2024 titled ‘Garden of Hope’ in which he reported that hundreds of cancer patients were embracing traditional medicine to manage their condition. The story stated that the government had commissioned research involving 443 cancer patients who were on traditional medication. Even though research was ongoing to ascertain the efficacy of the medicine, 76 per cent of the target group had reportedly seen improvement.
Njoroge interviewed Kelvin Kariuki from Thika, who had been diagnosed with stage two throat cancer in 2022. Kariuki stated sought help from a traditional health practitioner in Rongai, Kajiado County, after going through chemotherapy which did not help him. He used the medication for one year before being declared cancer free. However, there was no information on where to find the traditional healer.
And given that more people are turning to herbs because they cannot afford expensive conventional treatment, Njoroge should have given an indication of the price ranges involved. Not saying anything about this left a gap in his story.
For a story of such importance, one wonders why the reporter only interviewed one survivor if there were more than 400 others on the medication, and who share Kariuki’s testimony. If Njoroge located Kariuki, he could have widened his scope and found more survivors.
The story thus did not address many pertinent questions like: Where are the other survivors? At what stage of the disease did they start treatment? How many of them were men and how many women? Was there a correlation between the type of cancer and their gender, location, or even age? There is no doubt more voices would have beefed up this story and enhanced its credibility.
Njoroge’s story also stated those under research had seven different types of cancers, but he did not name them. This must have left viewers wondering which these were, and what types of cancers were most responsive to the traditional medicines, and why. Conversely, he did not say which group was least cured and why.
The study on which Njoroge based his story was carried out by the National Museums of Kenya and brought together KEMRI, the ministries of Health and Culture, and the University of Nairobi. However, information on the findings was sketchy.
This is the kind of story that should have been given more airtime to tie all the loose ends. The editor should have allowed it to run as a feature instead of a news story, perhaps even under the health segment. When a story leaves a consumer with more questions than answers, then the reporter and the media house have failed in their duty of informing their audience.
