Quote:
Originally Posted by KayakerNC
|
The question was asked, "Why was this thread started at all?" In other words, suggesting that nothing good would come of it. And many tried hard to make sure nothing good would come of it. They suggested, in a round-about way, that this thread should be shut down.
But you, KayakerNC, proved all the naysayers wrong. You provided a link to some excellent information about colon cancer. Your link was very helpful in making this thread worthwhile. Thank you, I read about 3/4 of the information provied by the link. In the future I will try to remember "Johns Hopkins Health Alerts."
But, you know me, I still have some questions: Before they described about 5 different tests, they said each one has its own risk or risks. But then, as they described each test, they never said what the risk(s) would be for that test. So, in this regard, it seems that Wickipedia turned out to be better. Wikipedia at least gave some of the risks for a colonoscopy. Probably because Wikipedia is not biased by being in the medical business.
Also, it said that most polyps remain benign. But that information by itself leaves a lot of questions unanswered. What percentage of polyps remain benign? And how many people out of X number of people have polyps in the first place? How do people with a family history of colon cancer compare with those with no family history? How do vegans compare with those who eat animal protein? I could go on and on with these questions.
They did say you could lower your risk by exercising and by other means. But, for example, what does it all add up to if one is at their ideal weight, eats lots of fiber from fresh fruit and vegetables, exercises and has no family history etc.. Does that represent a 50% reduction in risk or a 75% reduction in risk? And what would that be in terms of numbers of people per 100,000? Again, because they are in the medical business, they shy-away from answering these questions because it might encourage people to go untested.