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 at 12:38 PM.
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.
Saved my moms life, though.
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
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?
Originally Posted by Comma
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.
Last edited by dbalch; 04-04-2012 at 01:52 PM.
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!
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?
Originally Posted by Bananabonobo
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:
Last edited by dbalch; 04-04-2012 at 01:38 PM.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by dbalch
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.