[Barefoot]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

..... some have been helped by colonoscopies and some have been killed. If you only look at the ones that have been helped, which is what the medical community wants you to do, you will think there are nothing but good outcomes. There's a book on this subject: "Death by Colonoscopy" by Dr. Kaayla Daniel

First of all, every colonoscopy patient must sign a Waiver prior to the procedure which warns about possible negatives.
So patients do NOT think "there are nothing but good outcomes".
Most retired people are smarter than that and ask good questions.
For every procedure, there is some kind of book by an alarmist who wants to make some money and warn us about the risks.
An author/doctor who also knows that a catchy title is the way to do it.
Yes, a very small percentage of people may experience damage from colonoscopies, even a death
because of the anesthetic or a problem with the surgery itself.

As I said, a patient must sign a Waiver before the procedure, as with most medical procedures.
However millions of lives have been saved by colonoscopies, because bowel cancer is detectable early and treatable.
Now you're going to ask me how I know that millions of lives have been saved, to "prove" it and to provide statistics.
How can you possible quantify lives saved or polyps found? I can't.
But it's one cancer which is detectable and treatable. Don't we all want to know if we have cancer and catch it early?

[CFrance]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

That's not absolute proof. Running indicates a desire to overachieve and that can create stress hormones which in turn can cause the liver to overproduce cholesterol.

Oh, BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[CFrance]

Originally Posted by Barefoot

First of all, every colonoscopy patient must sign a Waiver prior to the procedure which warns about possible negatives.
So patients do NOT think "there are nothing but good outcomes".
Most retired people are smarter than that and ask good questions.
For every procedure, there is some kind of book by an alarmist who wants to make some money and warn us about the risks.
An author/doctor who also knows that a catchy title is the way to do it.
Yes, a very small percentage of people may experience damage from colonoscopies, even a death
because of the anesthetic or a problem with the surgery itself.

As I said, a patient must sign a Waiver before the procedure, as with most medical procedures.
However millions of lives have been saved by colonoscopies, because bowel cancer is detectable early and treatable.
Now you're going to ask me how I know that millions of lives have been saved, to "prove" it and to provide statistics.
How can you possible quantify lives saved or polyps found? I can't.
But it's one cancer which is detectable and treatable. Don't we all want to know if we have cancer and catch it early?

I am very suspicious of doctors who write books, unless they're textbooks. I question if they mainly want to make more money, or a name for themselves that will lead to making more money, or achieving prestige and power in their workplace.

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by Barefoot

First of all, every colonoscopy patient must sign a Waiver prior to the procedure which warns about possible negatives.
So patients do NOT think "there are nothing but good outcomes".
Most retired people are smarter than that and ask good questions.

Many don't even bother to read the waiver. If they do, they try to have a positive outlook, as you would, and imagine that the risk is minor. That's because everyone has been sold on the idea of getting a colonoscopy. The industry sees to it that most everyone becomes convinced.

For every procedure, there is some kind of book by an alarmist who wants to make some money and warn us about the risks.
An author/doctor who also knows that a catchy title is the way to do it.

How can you judge whether such books are worthwhile or not. Name one that you've read.

Yes, a very small percentage of people may experience damage from colonoscopies, even a death because of the anesthetic or a problem with the surgery itself.

That's your conclusion without having read the book. What happens when you match up the small percentage of lives saved with the small number of lives lost?

How can you possibly quantify lives saved or polyps found?

I don't know, I haven't read the book yet. But I think I will as soon as I get a chance.

Don't we all want to know if we have cancer and catch it early?

That's a good question but not one that has a simple answer. The problem is sometimes one of catching certain cancers too early which leads to unnecessary treatments. There's a book for that too: "Should I Be Tested For Cancer? Maybe Not and Here's Why"

In my opinion, he didn't provide enough information on colonoscopies. But colonoscopies would certainly be covered by the other book.

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by CFrance

Oh, BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Is that what you would call a knowledgeable and thoughtful reply?

[Barefoot]

Originally Posted by CFrance

I am very suspicious of doctors who write books, unless they're textbooks. I question if they mainly want to make more money, or a name for themselves that will lead to making more money, or achieving prestige and power in their workplace.

I think Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil have proven that some doctors love the limelight.

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by CFrance

I am very suspicious of doctors who write books, unless they're textbooks. I question if they mainly want to make more money, or a name for themselves that will lead to making more money, or achieving prestige and power in their workplace.

Do you know how much money a doctor makes when he/she writes a text book? Are they trying to make a name for themselves besides make a ton of money or make a name for themselves in their workplace?

And textbooks are not without errors by any means. There was a time, not too long ago, when most doctors refused to believe that lost brain cells could be regenerated. So that's what was in the text books. Now we know that brain cells can be regenerated.

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by Barefoot

I think Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil have proven that some doctors love the limelight.

I agree, but for a different reason. Don't believe everything you hear from a doctor on television or radio. It has to do with commercialism.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

I agree, but for a different reason. Don't believe everything you hear from a doctor on television or radio. It has to do with commercialism.

Don't believe everything you hear or read from a vegan on TOTV unless it's BarryRX.

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

Don't believe everything you hear or read from a vegan on TOTV unless it's BarryRX.

The lesson to be learned here is that if you never say anything to promote or communicate the health benefits of veganism, you can't ever be wrong.

[rubicon]

While not going too deeply into the issue on this thread i read an article wherein the medical community is split on the treatment and more specifically the over treatment of some forms of cancer. Essentially medical science has gotten good at detecting lesions and hence early treatment except some medical doctors believe no treatment should be rendered. In fact some medical doctors believe some legions shouldn't even be called cancer because patents over react.

Because of the legal environment medical professionals act with the thought constantly on their minds that they can be sued. Pharma is faced with the same issue plus securing FDA approval and instruction, etc. its a wonder anything in the medical community every gets done Add to that the fish oil salesmen and viola!

I am not enamored with medication but don't want to be one of those who doctors' himself and has a fool for a patient.

My personal concern at this time is the prolonged use of statins. My blood work stats at present are ideal.

[Aandjmassage]

I think stress kills more people so I will try not to worry about it to much.

[Nightengale212]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

The problem is sometimes one of catching certain cancers too early which leads to unnecessary treatments.

I beg to differ!!! I am a 10 year endometrial cancer survivor, and although my doctor thought I was nuts thinking something was seriously wrong with me because I had such minor symptoms, he agreed to do an endometrial biopsy at my insistence. A week after the biopsy was taken I received a call from my doctor informing me I had cancer. Two weeks later I was in the operating room, and by the Grace of God my aggressive grade cancer was caught at an early stage. Had my cancer been caught at a more advanced stage I would likely not be here today as late stage endometrial cancer has a poor prognosis.

Each year when I have my annual appointment with my doctor he tells me everytime he questions whether or not to do a endometrial biopsy on a woman with similar symptoms that I had he goes the biopsy route. Thus far, 5 women who my doctor prior to his experience with me likely would not have done biopsies on came back positive for endometrial cancer and had successful treatment becaue their cancesr was caught early.

[Barefoot]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

Don't believe everything you hear from a doctor on television or radio. It has to do with commercialism.

The author of "Death by Colonoscopy" has an interesting bio (obtained on her website).
It sounds like she is quite the media darling herself, kind of like Dr. Oz.

"In March 2005, Dr. Daniel was “media trained” by Joel Roberts, who dubbed her “a natural born entertainer” and a “naughty nutritionist” because of her quirky and naughty sense of humor. She has shared her gifts on the Dr. Oz Show, PBS Healing Quest, NPR’s People’s Pharmacy, ABC’s View from the Bay and Discovery Channel’s Medical Hotseat, and been quoted frequently in the media, including Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, London Observer, London Guardian, Toronto Globe and Mail, Vancouver Sun, Bon Appetit, Alternative Medicine, Townsend Letter Mat und Helse (Norway), Men’s Health, E!, Glamour, and other publications.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Nightengale212

I beg to differ!!! I am a 10 year endometrial cancer survivor, and although my doctor thought I was nuts thinking something was seriously wrong with me because I had such minor symptoms, he agreed to do an endometrial biopsy at my insistence. A week after the biopsy was taken I received a call from my doctor informing me I had cancer. Two weeks later I was in the operating room, and by the Grace of God my aggressive grade cancer was caught at an early stage. Had my cancer been caught at a more advanced stage I would likely not be here today as late stage endometrial cancer has a poor prognosis.

Each year when I have my annual appointment with my doctor he tells me everytime he questions whether or not to do a endometrial biopsy on a woman with similar symptoms that I had he goes the biopsy route. Thus far, 5 women who my doctor prior to his experience with me likely would not have done biopsies on came back positive for endometrial cancer and had successful treatment becaue their cancesr was caught early.

OH yes. I can't imagine anyone saying to their doctor when told they have cancer that they don't want any "unnecessary" treatment. What you say is, "Bring it ON". Even if it makes you bald and sick and weak.

Daughter had breast cancer spread into 11 lymph nodes at age 29. She had surgery, industrial strength chemo treatments, and as much radiation as her body could take....and thank you dear loving God, she is here with us. Last week she was 48.