Soylent Advice for those on the wrong side of 50.
New study questions the effectiveness of colonoscopies:
Colonoscopies are a dreaded rite of passage for many middle-age adults. The promise has been that if you endure the awkwardness and invasiveness of having a camera travel the length of your large intestine once every decade after age 45, you have the best chance of catching -- and perhaps preventing -- colorectal cancer. It's the second most common cause of cancer death in the United States. Some 15 million colonoscopies are performed in the US each year.
Now, a landmark study suggests the benefits of colonoscopies for cancer screening may be overestimated.
The study marks the first time colonoscopies have been compared head-to-head to no cancer screening in a randomized trial. The study found only meager benefits for the group of people invited to get the procedure: an 18% lower risk of getting colorectal cancer, and no significant reduction in the risk of cancer death. It was published Sunday in The New England Journal of Medicine.
Study researcher Dr. Michael Bretthauer, a gastroenterologist who leads the clinical effectiveness group at the University of Oslo in Norway, said he found the results disappointing.
But as a researcher, he has to follow the science, "so I think we have to embrace it," he said. "And we may have oversold the message for the last 10 years or so, and we have to wind it back a little."
Other experts say that as good as this study was, it has important limitations, and these results shouldn't deter people from getting colonoscopies.
[...] When the study authors restricted the results to the people who actually received colonoscopies -- about 12,000 out of the more than 28,000 who were invited to do so -- the procedure was found to be more effective. It reduced the risk of colorectal cancer by 31% and cut the risk of dying of that cancer by 50%.
Bretthauer said the true benefits of colonoscopy probably lie somewhere in the middle. He said he thinks of the results of the full study -- including people who did and didn't get colonoscopies after they were invited -- as the minimum amount of benefit colonoscopies provide to a screened population. He thinks of the results from the subset of people who actually got the test as the maximum benefit people could expect from the procedure.
[...] "I don't think anyone should be canceling their colonoscopy," said Dr. Jason Dominitz is the national director of gastroenterology for the Veterans Health Administration.
"We know that colon cancer screening works," he said in an interview with CNN. Dominitiz co-authored an editorial which ran alongside the study.
There are several options for colorectal cancer screening. Those include stool tests which check for the presence of blood or cancer cells, and a test called sigmoidoscopy, which looks only at the lower part of the colon. Both have been shown to reduce both cancer incidence and colorectal cancer deaths.
"Those other tests work through colonoscopy," Dominitz said. "They identify people at high risk who would benefit from colonoscopy, then the colonoscopy is done and removes polyps, for example, that prevents the individual from getting colon cancer in the first place, or it identifies colon cancer at a treatable stage."
Journal Reference:
Reiko Nishihara, Kana Wu, Paul Lochhead, et al.
Long-Term Colorectal-Cancer Incidence and Mortality after Lower Endoscopy [open], (DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1301969)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Gaaark on Wednesday October 12 2022, @10:49PM
I don't care: i love watching it on TV!
Form a tube with both hands together and look through it: you just watched a colonoscopy! Was it as good as a Kardashians rerun? Probably.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Booga1 on Wednesday October 12 2022, @10:49PM (19 children)
Maybe I'm misreading this, but it seems that the disappointing results are judged based on the fact that 57% of the people invited to get colonoscopies didn't get them done.
It seems harsh to devalue the usefulness of a procedure because people just didn't do it after they were asked to go do it. I understand people tend to put off getting tested for stuff, but wouldn't that mean doctors should push harder to get those tests done? They even mentioned the results are far more dramatic when you limit the comparison in outcomes to the group that actually got colonoscopies(cut the risk of dying of that cancer by 50%). That's a phenomenal result showing that colonoscopies actually work and save lives.
The headline and the story don't line up. Did I miss something?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by MostCynical on Wednesday October 12 2022, @11:20PM (3 children)
it seems your reading and mine align..
the colonoscopies were considered not effective when they didn't occur.
So
servicing your car is not effective if you could have had it serviced, but chose not to..
brushing your teeth is not effective if you could have brushed, but chose not to..
closing your windows and doors isn't effective in preventing bugs getting into your house if you chose not to close them..
Reduction in the risk of colorectal cancer by 31% and cutting the risk of dying of that cancer by 50% seems pretty clear evidence that having colonoscopies is a good idea.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Thursday October 13 2022, @12:33PM (1 child)
I suspect they're playing math games like the Birth Control method numbers do: ~18 per 100 women who choose condoms as their primary form of birth control become pregnant each year. Not because condoms are ineffective when used properly, but because over the course of a year those 18 women will have one or more event where they choose not to use the condom "just this time". Ditto for birth control pills, except the number is 9/100.
In this case it's, "we prescribed X for condition Y, and outcome changed by Z% compared to the control group". Can anyone speak to whether that's a fair assessment of how Medical research runs their numbers?
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 2) by legont on Thursday October 13 2022, @10:47PM
Well, there are raw data and adjusted one. To give you a hint, most raw data sets show that covid vaccine increases both infections and chances of death.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 13 2022, @03:06PM
Which can still be a valuable thing to study! Maybe that little needs-service light could improved or we can make it easier to get to the shop. So basically, the exact opposite of what the headline is doing!
This seems like one of those situations where the headline was twisted to make it sound more shocking at the expense of MISINFORMING the audience.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 12 2022, @11:21PM
Speculation -- if you have a family history of colon cancer or any other reasons to be at high risk (not sure what these are--perhaps obesity?), then getting scoped is likely a good idea. Otherwise, maybe not?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Mykl on Thursday October 13 2022, @12:19AM
I thought that too. It seems weird to say that 'colonoscopies are not very effective because a lot of people don't do them'. Kind of like saying that seatbelts don't help when people don't put them on?
(Score: 2) by legont on Thursday October 13 2022, @01:29AM
No you did not. Even better results would be if they were to preform colonoscopy and remove polyps versus do not remove polyps.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bradley13 on Thursday October 13 2022, @05:17AM (11 children)
I read it differently. If you want to know whether a treatment is effective, you need a control group that didn't get the treatment. In this case, not getting a colonoscopy made not much difference - the procedure doesn't prevent death from cancer. What is clearly does do is identify more cancer.
Here's the important point, imho: identifying cancer that is going to kill you is *not* a benefit. It means that you are in for a lot of unpleasant treatment. Like prostate cancer: many men die *with* prostate cancer, but few die *from* prostate cancer.
Dropping the control group to boost the results makes no sense to me. How can you speculate on the efficacy of a treatment, if you exclude the control group?
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Thursday October 13 2022, @10:45AM (5 children)
Missing "not". I meant to say "identifying cancer that is _not_ going to kill you is *not* a benefit". If it doesn't affect you, it is better to not even know about it.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Thursday October 13 2022, @12:41PM (4 children)
The presentation *wasn't* this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGOZRp8bwr4 - but I'm pretty sure it was by the same guy.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 5, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Thursday October 13 2022, @02:30PM (2 children)
I had a lump in the tip of my tongue, it was growing fast and actually big enough to cause me to lisp while reading to our newborn... so: see a specialist, right? Yeah, I go to an ENT, he pulls the wax out of my ears because that's what ENTs do, but he has no idea what the lump could be, schedules a surgery (because that's what ENTs get paid the big bucks for) to take a sample of it. In taking the sample he basically yanks the whole thing out and I then have a dent in my tongue instead of a lump... off to the lab for a (handsomely reimbursed) biopsy and 'et voila' it's a Schwannoma - basically the myelin nerve sheath gone wild with growth.
About 2 years later, we've moved, the lump has grown back but much more slowly and possibly stopped at a non-lisp causing size, and I go to a local ENT for followup. I hear him in the back office shooting the shit with some nurse while the receptionist is verifying my insurance, for 40 minutes. I work for a big company right across the street, the insurance is Aetna, but I guess he wanted the details... So, when it comes back as "very good coverage for surgery" he invites me back, looks at my tongue with a lamp for 2 seconds, then reads me a scare story about Schwannomas, how they can "transform into a string of pearls, very scary, we need to get in there and get the whole thing this time (translating to a huge dent in my tongue, possibly a notch that won't be growing back)" oh, and I'm in such luck, he has an opening in his surgery schedule day after tomorrow, see the receptionist on your way out to get on the schedule, and your insurance is very good: will cover the whole thing. Yeah, no thanks. I walk out, go home and in 15 seconds on Google I find his string of pearls reference... at the time it was a) basically the top Google result for Schwannoma, and b) reported as an isolated observation in a Japanese fisherman on a nerve running between his ribs, no other reports for "string of pearls Schwannoma" appeared anywhere. A couple of years later we've moved again and I do a followup with a (IMO much better) ENT who says: "cutting on those can cause them to grow back more aggressively, if you're not experiencing trouble with it at its current size (which I never have since the initial surgery), then best to leave it alone."
Around here, there are M.D.s and D.O.s - the D.O. educational route emphasizes "hands off" when it is likely to lead to the best overall outcome. When I must see a doctor, I actively seek out the D.O.s, but as you can imagine, they're outnumbered about 10:1 by the M.D.s (Money Doctors?)
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 3, Interesting) by FatPhil on Thursday October 13 2022, @02:52PM (1 child)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Friday October 14 2022, @11:31AM
Now 17 years post walkout on the surgery pusher, it is beyond all research standards of proof that I made the right call for me, and I suspect that it would have been the right call for 99.999% of patients in similar situations.
During the 40 minutes I was waiting, I caught maybe 5 minutes of conversation through the door from the waiting room to the consulting office. 4 minutes of small talk, and, after my insurance info went back something to the effect of "okay, so what the fuck is a Schwannoma? Oh, here we go, yeah send him back.". I believe the receptionist was "on our side" leaving the door ajar, bless her.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday October 13 2022, @02:55PM
Both are based on exactly the same material, which is basically his book: /Surgery: The Ultimate Placebo/.
If you've got the time, you may as well watch the longer one, some interesting questions are raised in the 30m Q&A at the end.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday October 13 2022, @01:04PM (1 child)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by choose another one on Thursday October 13 2022, @09:52PM
Presentation is so bad (agreed) that I'm not absolutely sure either, but sounds to me like:
- some were selected for screening and some not, and this is stated as a randomized trial so I have to assume that is what was randomized
- rates of colo-cancer death were the same (or not statistically significant difference) in the selected group and the unselected group
- oops, bad result
Good researchers stop there, having used the data they have collected only in the way it was designed to be used, but some researchers can't resist, having got the data (which is the expensive bit) re-analyzing / over-analyzing until they get a result that is "interesting" or "good" or *cough* "more likely to get them another research grant". See also: P-Hacking.
In this case:
- because no-change-in-death-rate was not the desired result they then split the selected-for-screening group into showed-up and no-shows and compared results for those groups
- ooh look, good result now, the selected-and-showed-up had half the death rate of the not-selected
- now we have a good result
No, now you have a BS result. AKA Green Jelly Beans cause acne (see https://xkcd.com/882/ [xkcd.com] )
To see why consider:
- if (very roughly) half the screening group were no-shows, and the whole screening group had same death rate as non-screening, then...
- the no-shows must have had _three__times_ the death rate of the never-screened
- so ignoring the screening letter ups your cancer death risk by 3x compared to not getting a letter at all (which is random)
- which means one randomly-selected group has 3x the death rate of another
Clearly that is BS, but how did it happen? - answer: something just ain't random
For me, the no-shows are clearly a self-selected group with unknown bias (and, from the results, I'd say significant bias)
It is therefore clearly not valid to compare the no-shows with _any_ other group unless (maybe) you have established and controlled-for that selection bias, it just isn't a randomized trial anymore.
There may or may not be other issues in the group selection in the study, the selected/not-selected groups may not be randomized afterall, I don't know
(Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 13 2022, @03:02PM
Yeah, the control group should be people who did not get the procedure.
But the experimental group should not ALSO be people who did not get the procedure!
(Score: 3, Informative) by Booga1 on Thursday October 13 2022, @05:53PM (1 child)
I wanted to know what they considered to be the control group, so I went and read the study abstract. Turns out this is an observational study taken from a self-report questionnaire given to 88,902 nurses and other health care professionals. It is not a study with what I would normally think of as a control group. There is also a disparity between what the average person calls a colonoscopy and the stricter medical terms for other types of endoscopy. The study is mainly comparing people who got (deep) colonoscopies to those who got a (shallow) sigmoidoscopy done. Also, removal of the polyps and other treatments for cancers were done as usual. Since this was just an observational survey, nobody was left untreated or untested as a control group.
While they do include people who got no tests at all, many of the people "invited" to do a colonoscopy were those who got other tests that caused the doctor to recommend it(i.e. signs of polyps, cancer). On top of that, the conclusions were comparing reductions in cancer between deep and shallow cancers. Basically, if your shallow(sigmoidoscopy) and other cancer screening tests came back clean, doing a deep colonoscopy didn't change outcomes by much. However, cancers deeper in the colon were almost exclusively detected by colonoscopy procedures.
Seems like a "well, duh" result to me, but this is just quantifying how much benefit there was from deep colonoscopies compared to other procedures.
-
My take away is this: Getting at least one deep colonoscopy is worthwhile. Maybe doing frequent shallow sigmoidoscopies instead of the full colonoscopy would be almost as effective, as long as all tests come back clean. They do note that their study population is 100% health care professionals, which really limits the generalization of the findings. They are not making any recommendations to stop doing colonoscopies.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 13 2022, @06:27PM
I got a both-endoscopy when I went in!
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 12 2022, @11:22PM (11 children)
Everybody hates on the prep, and for me it's not the taste it's the volume. Who drinks 3L of anything in that short period of time?
But no, what I really dread is being drugged. It was a lot less bad than I thought it would be. Last thing I remember is failing to track things with my eyes like I had too much to drink, and I actually said "it feels like I had too much to drink" then I woke up in a wheel chair.
So? The real anxiety comes from having been knocked out at the dentist years earlier. For that one they under-dosed and I was all dizzy and shit until they shot me again. 1/10 would not recommend. Fuck that shit. I have anxiety about all anesthetics now.
I don't want to be knocked out. Find a way to scan my colon without prep or drugs. That'd rule. They have "virtuals" now, but I'm given to understand they're even less effective.
Standard is screening at 45 because I have a 1st degree relative who got CC (Mom) but I waited until 50 anyway and they found one benign polyp. I'm supposed to have it again at 55 and seriously, if I could legit avoid it I would. I don't think this study really overturns accepted practice enough for me though. I plan to bite the bullet again.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 13 2022, @12:01AM (4 children)
Can we assume that your colonoscopy was a few years ago? Drank a small cup of sludge, nowhere near 3 liters. I'ma guess about 6 ounces. No drugs. Lay back, relax, straighten this leg, bend that knee, relax, relax, don't move, and it was all done in a few minutes. The procedure was performed by a semi-attractive technician, who probably wasn't yet a great-grandmother.
A lot of procedures have become simpler, easier, less painful, and less intrusive in recent decades, including the colonoscopy.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 13 2022, @12:29AM
What country / state are you in? That's not the way it's done here!
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 13 2022, @01:10AM (1 child)
Top AC here. Procedure was 4 years ago. I've heard that some places offer a low-volume prep as well as different anesthesia options. I'm on Medical. Maybe the 3L prep is cheaper. It seems like the full knock-out would be more expensive; but maybe with twilight the patient sometimes freaks out, which would require a *conditional* knock-out which might be more expensive.
On the one hand, maybe I could put in a request for some changes. On the other, it seems like there could be greater risk if you're deviating from established procedures.
Also, free healthcare. Don't look gift horse in mouth?
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 13 2022, @02:56PM
They clean you out for the anesthesia as well as the procedure. They don't want you choking on your own puke...
I'd wager the volume difference is determined by whether or not you are getting anesthesia.
Mine was the large volume twilight drugs one about a year ago.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 13 2022, @09:11AM
There are two main types of prep. Small and dehydrating with serious potential side effects, and large awful tasting 2-3 liter cordial like mixtures with less side effects.
Most people can't finish the second half or second course of the large 2-3L one. Get the first one mostly down and you should be fine though.
My first colo I threw up the mixture. It was just terrible. I went to a chemist and then gave me a pill to stop the upchucking, and got a couple of small bottles which when mixed with 500ml of water did a power purge.
Second colo was really really bad in the prep. Plenvu. I got the first course down. It went down into the guts. I started the second course an hour later, and then threw up 30 minutes into it. I get shivers just thinking about drinking that stuff. Literally like drinking poison.
There must be a better way.
They refused to give me the small dose prep on the grounds that it can dehydrate and harm organs. I'd rather risk that then do Plenvu again.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 13 2022, @01:02AM (1 child)
You should have the option of "twilight" anesthesia where they don't completely knock you out. I did that for my first one and it was pretty cool because you can watch it on the big screen. I've unfortunately have had the need to also do an endoscopy, so I have it done at the same time and you for sure don't want to be awake when they go down your throat.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 13 2022, @07:31AM
And if they are short on cameras, you want to do the throat one first.
(Score: 3, Funny) by legont on Thursday October 13 2022, @01:18AM (3 children)
I love the stuff they give me. I have vivid color dreams and wake up refreshed. I wish I die during the procedure.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 13 2022, @02:00AM
The nurse in charge of scheduling me was like "Oooooh, you're going to get the good stuff". I just rolled my eyes. Everybody's different.
(Score: 2) by Sourcery42 on Thursday October 13 2022, @04:21PM (1 child)
I want what you had. I felt like I blacked out for the procedure and woke up with a mild hangover that persisted until that evening.
(Score: 2) by legont on Thursday October 13 2022, @10:39PM
Interesting. I wonder if it were you body or the drugs themselves.
I know that in third word countries they have different drugs and one has to pay to get good ones. Yes, I personally did it - not for myself, but for a relative.
Anyway, so far in the US I had 5 procedures and all of them were pleasant.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by hendrikboom on Wednesday October 12 2022, @11:23PM (6 children)
My first colonoscopy was pleasant. I got to watch it on a video monitor. It had all the allure of exploring a cave. The doctor told me what was happening and showed me when we reached the appendix.
Alas, on subsequent colonoscopies I didn't get to watch.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Tork on Thursday October 13 2022, @12:29AM (1 child)
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 13 2022, @09:03AM
your insides.. are really strange.. and that is one weird remote camera..
(Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Thursday October 13 2022, @01:03AM (3 children)
One of my big objections to "procedures" in the US is that general anesthesia is required / standard / seriously difficult to avoid even for simple things like colonoscopy. It really should be the patient's choice, but I believe liability insurance becomes more expensive when the patient can hear and remember the M.D. saying "Oh Shit!" during the procedure.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 13 2022, @09:00AM (2 children)
Think about this carefully. On one hand, this is exactly the kind of situation where saying that makes sense.
On the other, it means your bowel prep failed and you will probably have to do it again.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday October 13 2022, @12:52PM (1 child)
Well, yes butt... There are many things that can and do go wrong in colonoscopy. Overall they claim the benefit outweighs the risks, but studied like this one showing minimal benefit shift that balance away from supporting the 8 procedures per day per MD money spinning machines.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 13 2022, @03:31PM
This paper says an 18% drop is "meager." That doesn't sound meager to me, and when you look at the statistics for the people who actually went and got them, that 18% jumps to a third, and 50% don't die from cancer. I understand where they're coming from, where the messaging has been implying that the numbers must be something like above 90% and that 18% pales in comparison, but 18% is still not a small number in my opinion. Pick any kind of cancer and if a study comes out and says that they found something that cuts the incidence by 18%, that would be an attention grabbing headline.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by MonkeypoxBugChaser on Wednesday October 12 2022, @11:37PM (4 children)
Maybe we won't have to deal with this anymore and they can come up with some other test.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 12 2022, @11:59PM
There's the camera pill, but the one person that I know who had this test was disappointed. Their intestines moved slowly and the battery died before the camera got to the large intestine.
Still takes the massive liquid flush in advance, but no anesthetic.
Maybe batteries have gotten better or power management in the camera/memory improved in the last ~5 years (when the test noted above was done)?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday October 13 2022, @02:35PM (2 children)
There's a "pill cam" that takes a video on the way through. You do have to "retrieve" it when it comes out, and also deal with the icky thought that it is recycled into other patients. My GI convinced me that the pill cam isn't worth the time because it either misses the polyps or if it does show them then you need to go through the laproscopic procedure to remove them anyway, why not get a two-fer and have anything suspicious biopsied (and billed) right away in a single procedure? He also justified putting me on "3 year accelerated recapture" based on the "sessile growths" he found and biopsied on his first exploration. I think I'll be waiting a few extra years beyond his schedule, after all: we have very different risk-benefit profiles in this relationship.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 13 2022, @03:00PM (1 child)
Plus they can remove the polyps at the same time they're poking around up there so it's one-and-done for a lot of cases.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Thursday October 13 2022, @03:29PM
I see the benefits, I resent the M.D. knows all initial presentation of: "No choice, no alternatives, the only thing you should do now is a colonoscopy." You're being f-ing paid and paid well for this "initial consultation" I don't care how many times you have done it and how boring it is for you, this is my first time and the purpose of the consultation is to address my questions and concerns. I'm not looking to "win an argument" with an M.D. who does 50 procedures a week, I want to hear his perspective on the risks, benefits and alternatives, and it would be nice if I didn't have to bring all the risks and alternatives to the conversation.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 1) by Coligny on Thursday October 13 2022, @03:26AM (3 children)
Had one with no anesthesia. Honestly less bothersome than unloading the car after a big shopping trip. And certainly less dangerous too.
And the evaluation for this kind of test is aboot opposing risks to benefits.
And in this case it’s a no brainer. It’s like claming against bewbs massage for breast cancer screening…
Also… we really are not in a context where this should even be a topic…
(Score: -1, Troll) by Coligny on Thursday October 13 2022, @03:29AM (1 child)
Especially after the Pfizer’s admission that they didn’t test the efficacy of their kouf vaccine against transmission of the virus.
It’s at best fraud…
(Score: 1) by Coligny on Saturday October 29 2022, @02:42AM
And still some assw1pes to moderate as troll while i’m quoting pfizer’s press release.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday October 13 2022, @02:19PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by mexsudo on Thursday October 13 2022, @11:03AM (3 children)
my surgeon said he would Not have detected my colon cancer if I had a colonoscopy two Months before
he further said it is just a big money maker, there is no reasonable benifit
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 13 2022, @04:25PM (1 child)
So it did detect your cancer but it was simultaneously of no benefit?
(Score: 2) by istartedi on Thursday October 13 2022, @05:18PM
No, I think the implication is that he had a fast-growing cancer that would not have showed up two months before his surgery. That sounds unusual to me. I'm given to understand that most colon cancers take a few years to reach a stage where they require surgery.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 23 2022, @06:55AM
Males in my family die from digestive tract related cancers. Have a scan every decade or so or possibly die a nasty death, or worse spend a few years being fed through a hole in your stomach. I understand that a lot of people don't need it. They cut polyps from my guts. Second check found nothing. I do not ever want to go back. Would you really want to have to make this decision? Aweful process to go through but it could save your life.