Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Doctor's Suggest Eliminating Some Tests and Screening.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Doctor's Suggest Eliminating Some Tests and Screening.

    Doctors call for end to 45 medical tests - Health - Cancer - msnbc.com

    45 down, 2,000 to go.

    My favorite is the colonoscopy. I'm supposed to let some guy snake a metal tube up my you-know-what? Excuse me, exactly how do you sanitize something like a camera? And just how many of these are you doing every day? You sure you washed that thing now? Google colonoscopy/hepatitis deaths.

    In the first place, the risks of having your colon torn by the camera or getting a fatal infection are probably higher than getting colon cancer.

    In the second place, if they find a polyp, they just cut it out on the spot (for a higher fee, of course). How do we know cutting this thing doesn't stimulate malignancy?

    And finally, what are the survival rates of chemotherapy, even if they do find a malignant tumor in your colon?

    This makes no sense to me. Nice business though for doctors, hospitals, butt camera manufacturers, pharma companies.

    Oh, and by the way, don't think for a minute even one of these tests is actually going to be eliminated.
    Last edited by dbalch; 04-04-2012, 12:38 PM.

  • #2
    Most medical "preventative" tests are anything but that. Prevention starts with lifestyle. If they want to test and treat health they would just have you journal your food intake and activities for a couple weeks and prescribe changes from there. That is health. Testing is masterbation without the payoff in most cases.

    Comment


    • #3
      Saved my moms life, though.

      Comment


      • #4
        saved my mom's too. i'm all for getting rid of tests when they are genuinely unnecessary as demonstrated by data, but i think the colonoscopy is fairly well *supported* by data, and your squeamishness about it (yes, they sterilize the camera... have you never heard of an autoclave?) doesn't support chucking it out.

        Originally posted by Comma View Post
        Saved my moms life, though.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Comma View Post
          Saved my moms life, though.
          Glad to hear that. What's interesting though, is that we don't really get much chance to know what the alternative outcome might have been. I.e. if she had immediately gone on a strict nutritional program instead of taking chemotherapy (I'm assuming that's what she did. That's what most people do.) Could she have survived without undergoing chemo, not risking its side effects and long term health risks?

          As Neckhammer said, the time to start using nutrition to prevent cancer is before you get it. But there is evidence to suggest it can work even after it starts.

          And here's an article about colonoscopies you might find interesting. How many cases go unreported 1) because the problems can't be traced with solid evidence back to the hospitals and 2) somehow, the news never makes it to the mainstream press.

          http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...oscopies_N.htm
          Last edited by dbalch; 04-04-2012, 01:52 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            i would also point out the FIRST LINE in the list: REPEAT colonoscopies. not initial ones. so basically, ohhhh what the hell i gotta go for this pun cos it's too good to avoid... stuff it up your bum!

            Comment


            • #7
              dbalch... really? because i would like to see those studies for colon cancer. we've had a lot of it in my family - in fact that's one major reason i dropped grains and meandered toward paleo - and i've heard of plenty old-timers who never got checked, never got treated, and who just got sick and eventually dropped dead.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Bananabonobo View Post
                dbalch... really? because i would like to see those studies for colon cancer. we've had a lot of it in my family - in fact that's one major reason i dropped grains and meandered toward paleo - and i've heard of plenty old-timers who never got checked, never got treated, and who just got sick and eventually dropped dead.
                I would suggest you read a book called "The Gerson Therapy", by Charlotte Gerson. It's my opinion that the medical establishment is thoroughly corrupted by special commercial interests and purposely doesn't explore simple treatments like nutrition. That's why there aren't a lot of "studies". Think about it. Shouldn't there be?

                RE the people you referred to who died. Did they attempt to make a change in their diet once they discovered that they had cancer?

                Also, I'm not suggesting we outlaw colonoscopies. I'm just saying I'm not doing it, because the risks are greater than the rewards. For example:

                http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...oscopies_N.htm
                Last edited by dbalch; 04-04-2012, 01:38 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  As a medical professional, while I agree that some procedures are overdone, dismissing them all out of hand is the wrong attitude.

                  Of course it's much better to have a better lifestyle to help avoid these problems all together, but preventative care is way better than finding out you have inopperable cancer.

                  And as far as colonoscopies, the instruments are sterilized usually through autoclaves, and before they're even released they're rigorously tested to be sure that these sterilization processes work over thousands of cycles. While it's of course possible that a company messes this up, or the hospital does it wrong, for the most part there are not any big problems with that kind of thing.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by dbalch View Post
                    Glad to hear that. What's interesting though, is that we don't really get much chance to know what the alternative outcome might have been. I.e. if she had immediately gone on a strict nutritional program instead of taking chemotherapy (I'm assuming that's what she did. That's what most people do.) Could she have survived without undergoing chemo, not risking its side effects and long term health risks?

                    As Neckhammer said, the time to start using nutrition to prevent cancer is before you get it. But there is evidence to suggest it can work even after it starts.
                    Also, the amount of evidence that changing your food intake can cure cancer is minimal at best. If it worked, people would be doing it and publishing peer-reviewed papers.

                    I don't want primal/paleo to be portrayed as something where the praticioners think it's this miracle thing that will cure AIDS or whatever, because it makes it that much more hokey in the eyes of people who should try it and reap the actual health benefits.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Lereas View Post
                      Also, the amount of evidence that changing your food intake can cure cancer is minimal at best. If it worked, people would be doing it and publishing peer-reviewed papers.

                      I don't want primal/paleo to be portrayed as something where the praticioners think it's this miracle thing that will cure AIDS or whatever, because it makes it that much more hokey in the eyes of people who should try it and reap the actual health benefits.
                      As I said already, once you've got cancer, you're in a heap of trouble. I did not for a minute suggest that nutrition is a miracle cure. I'm just saying that in many cases it might be a better option. The AMA's "quack patrol" makes sure anybody that tries is run out of the country, the way Max Gerson was.



                      Even you must admit that conventional therapies have an unimpressive success rate. And that's not counting the other illnesses that develop later in some "survivors". These illnesses are often the result of vastly weakened immune systems due to chemo treatments. Yet, these deaths are not traced back to cancer and are listed death by some other cause. Was this really a successful cancer treatment?

                      Personally, if I get cancer I'm just going to try to take my diet to another level and ride it out. I don't see any reason to bankrupt my family for something that's probably going to kill me before the cancer does.

                      And here's a link to a story about unsanitary colonoscopies. Who knows how many cases go unreported.

                      http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...oscopies_N.htm
                      Last edited by dbalch; 04-04-2012, 01:54 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by dbalch View Post
                        RE the people you referred to who died. Did they attempt to make a change in their diet once they discovered that they had cancer?
                        My aunt didn't get the chance. She was diagnosed, underwent surgery where they found cancer everywhere, never left the hospital, and died days later. If she would have had a colonoscopy she may have found it earlier and had a chance.

                        What colonoscopies have done for me is:
                        The first one found a pre-cancerous polyp.
                        The second one was clear and re-enforced the fact that my change in diet was a good, healthy decision. It also said to me that grains are problematic for me.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          She didn't have chemo- they cut it out, sewed the intestine up, all is well. They caught it so early that it was minimally invasive,as far as it goes. There is no way nutritional changes at that point would have done as well. Maybe years before, but again, not something we'll ever know.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Well there is this regarding colonoscopy " Even though studies show that screening can reduce disease-specific mortality from colorectal cancer, there is little evidence that it reduces all-cause mortality. So as far as we know, screening probably wonít prolong your life. It seems like it should: I donít understand why it doesnít, and it bothers me. This certainly isnít the message weíre getting from the media and from the medical profession."

                            Science-Based Medicine Ľ Questioning Colonoscopy

                            Preventative (its not....just early detection) tests....its just not so black and white is all.
                            Last edited by Neckhammer; 04-04-2012, 04:22 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Here is one that's overdone:
                              Mammography!

                              Never had one, never will. THAT is a complete medical scam because most of the readings are wrong.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X