OT: colonoscopy

Gina Kolata does her usual thorough job in this article on colonoscopy:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/14/he...l?_r=1&ei=5094
&en=b2841411c74a5b27&hp=&ex=1166072400
&oref=slogin&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

or

http://tinyurl.com/y3q55g

Interesting quote:
The patients in all the studies had at least one adenoma detected on
colonoscopy but did not have cancer. They developed cancer in the next
few years, however, at the same rate as would be expected in the general
population without screening.
(end of quote)

Am I reading that right? That being screened makes *no* difference in
the rate of cancer?

Chak

--
I've learned that whenever I decide something with an open heart, I
usually make the right decision.
--Maya Angelou

Chakolate <chakolateDeathToSpammers@gmail.com> wrote:

> Gina Kolata does her usual thorough job in this article on colonoscopy:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/14/he...l?_r=1&ei=5094
> &en=b2841411c74a5b27&hp=&ex=1166072400
> &oref=slogin&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print
>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/y3q55g
>
> Interesting quote:
> The patients in all the studies had at least one adenoma detected on
> colonoscopy but did not have cancer. They developed cancer in the next
> few years, however, at the same rate as would be expected in the general
> population without screening.
> (end of quote)
>
> Am I reading that right? That being screened makes *no* difference in
> the rate of cancer?

The article is about the efficiency of colonoscopies, or rather,
doctors' abilities to properly find adenomas. A badly screened person is
no "safer" from getting cancer than unscreened people because of the
_quality_ of screening.

--
Keera in Norway * Think big. Shrink to fit.
http://home.online.no/~kafox/

I'm not sure this is actually "OT." My gyn is insisting I have an annual
colonoscopy beginning next year when I'm fifty, as just another part of the
general Joys of Middle-Aged Womanhood, and I'm not sure I'm going to agree.
It's so invasive and painful.

Everybody in my family dies of some form of cancer or other, on both sides,
but nobody gets it until they're in their sixties.

I guess it's time to start doing some research to satisfy myself about the
decision. Any thoughts?

ep

"Chakolate" <chakolateDeathToSpammers@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98999458AA2Bchakolatehotmailcom@207.115.17 .102...
> Gina Kolata does her usual thorough job in this article on colonoscopy:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/14/he...l?_r=1&ei=5094
> &en=b2841411c74a5b27&hp=&ex=1166072400
> &oref=slogin&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print
>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/y3q55g
>
> Interesting quote:
> The patients in all the studies had at least one adenoma detected on
> colonoscopy but did not have cancer. They developed cancer in the next
> few years, however, at the same rate as would be expected in the general
> population without screening.
> (end of quote)
>
> Am I reading that right? That being screened makes *no* difference in
> the rate of cancer?
>
> Chak
>
> --
> I've learned that whenever I decide something with an open heart, I
> usually make the right decision.
> --Maya Angelou

"Edna Pearl" <edna_pearl@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote in message
news:zKkgh.430$Iz.103@bigfe9...
> I'm not sure this is actually "OT." My gyn is insisting I have an annual
> colonoscopy beginning next year when I'm fifty, as just another part of
> the general Joys of Middle-Aged Womanhood, and I'm not sure I'm going to
> agree. It's so invasive and painful.
>
> Everybody in my family dies of some form of cancer or other, on both
> sides, but nobody gets it until they're in their sixties.
>
> I guess it's time to start doing some research to satisfy myself about the
> decision. Any thoughts?
>
> ep

I haven't heard of anyone getting an annual colonoscopy even if "high risk".
It takes a while for the polyps to develop and at the moment the consensus
is that if nothing is found on colonoscopy then you're okay for about 5
yrs. I always questioned that as some people may grow these polyps faster
than others. A friend's husband who's family has a history of Familial
Polyposis( a disease where you grow many multiple precancerous polyps) gets
one every 2-3 yrs.

You are saying the scoping is invasive & painful, so I gather you've had
one? I get mixed experiences from people, either they were right out and
didn't feel a thing or they were very much aware and in great pain. Also,
some of the people who say they didn't feel a thing probably did but don't
remember anything due to the amnesic effect of the concious sedation drug,
usually Versed.

It's good medical practice to keep people as comfortable as possible during
such an invasive procedure. If you have to up the meds then so be it. A
painful experience will result in refusal to ever do the scope again,
resulting in cancers that could have been detected earlier.

Roseanne

thinkbig.shrinktofit@online.no (Keera Ann Fox) wrote in
news:1hqcwa5.3j05ef6c9i26N%thinkbig.shrinktofit@on line.no:

> The article is about the efficiency of colonoscopies, or rather,
> doctors' abilities to properly find adenomas. A badly screened person is
> no "safer" from getting cancer than unscreened people because of the
> _quality_ of screening.
>

That's not what it says. It says that people who were screened developed
cancer at the same rate as those who were not screened.

Chak

--
I've learned that whenever I decide something with an open heart, I usually
make the right decision.
--Maya Angelou

"Edna Pearl" <edna_pearl@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote in
news:zKkgh.430$Iz.103@bigfe9:

> I'm not sure this is actually "OT." My gyn is insisting I have an
> annual colonoscopy beginning next year when I'm fifty, as just another
> part of the general Joys of Middle-Aged Womanhood, and I'm not sure
> I'm going to agree. It's so invasive and painful.
>
> Everybody in my family dies of some form of cancer or other, on both
> sides, but nobody gets it until they're in their sixties.
>
> I guess it's time to start doing some research to satisfy myself about
> the decision. Any thoughts?
>

I have serious doubts about the need for screening everybody. It seems
like something the doctors have done more for their bottom line than for
the patients. Every single colonoscopy finds a polyp, though, so the doc
triumphantly announces to the patient how many polyps he excised, but he
doesn't mention how many of them were over 10 mm. It's only the ones
over 10 that should be excised.

That said, however, since you have a history of cancer in your family,
I'd probably think about getting one when I was 55-60. I assume you're
doing all the good dietary stuff of getting lots of fruits and veggies?

Chak

--
I've learned that whenever I decide something with an open heart, I
usually make the right decision.
--Maya Angelou

"Chakolate" <chakolateDeathToSpammers@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9899CEA82C489chakolatehotmailcom@207.115.1 7.102...
> "Edna Pearl" <edna_pearl@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote in
> news:zKkgh.430$Iz.103@bigfe9:
>
>> I'm not sure this is actually "OT." My gyn is insisting I have an
>> annual colonoscopy beginning next year when I'm fifty, as just another
>> part of the general Joys of Middle-Aged Womanhood, and I'm not sure
>> I'm going to agree. It's so invasive and painful.
>>
>> Everybody in my family dies of some form of cancer or other, on both
>> sides, but nobody gets it until they're in their sixties.
>>
>> I guess it's time to start doing some research to satisfy myself about
>> the decision. Any thoughts?
>>
>
> I have serious doubts about the need for screening everybody. It seems
> like something the doctors have done more for their bottom line than for
> the patients. Every single colonoscopy finds a polyp, though,

I understand your point, but is this true? I was under the impression that
while they're very common, there are people (our age-ish, not just young)
who have none.

Cathy

so the doc
> triumphantly announces to the patient how many polyps he excised, but he
> doesn't mention how many of them were over 10 mm. It's only the ones
> over 10 that should be excised.
>
> That said, however, since you have a history of cancer in your family,
> I'd probably think about getting one when I was 55-60. I assume you're
> doing all the good dietary stuff of getting lots of fruits and veggies?
>
> Chak
>
> --
> I've learned that whenever I decide something with an open heart, I
> usually make the right decision.
> --Maya Angelou

"Edna Pearl" <edna_pearl@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote in message
news:zKkgh.430$Iz.103@bigfe9...
> I'm not sure this is actually "OT." My gyn is insisting I have an annual
> colonoscopy beginning next year when I'm fifty, as just another part of
the
> general Joys of Middle-Aged Womanhood, and I'm not sure I'm going to
agree.
> It's so invasive and painful.
-----------------
It's invasive, all right, but it's not at all painful. I've had 2 of them.
Not painful.

The news story I heard, BTW, said that many doctors complete a colonoscopy
in under 6 minutes, which is not enough time to make a thorough search for
polyps, and these doctors' patients are being put at risk by the doctors
rushing through it.

Eva

Chakolate wrote:

> I have serious doubts about the need for screening everybody. It seems
> like something the doctors have done more for their bottom line than for
> the patients. Every single colonoscopy finds a polyp, though, so the doc
> triumphantly announces to the patient how many polyps he excised, but he
> doesn't mention how many of them were over 10 mm. It's only the ones
> over 10 that should be excised.

One case in contradiction: I've had two colonscopies, only one
polyp, benign. (I don't remember the size, but it had to be
excised for biopsy.)

> That said, however, since you have a history of cancer in your family,
> I'd probably think about getting one when I was 55-60. I assume you're
> doing all the good dietary stuff of getting lots of fruits and veggies?

And avoiding beef?

FurPaw


--
Better dead than Red.

To reply, unleash the dog.

Eva wrote:
> "Edna Pearl" <edna_pearl@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote in message
> news:zKkgh.430$Iz.103@bigfe9...
>> I'm not sure this is actually "OT." My gyn is insisting I have an annual
>> colonoscopy beginning next year when I'm fifty, as just another part of
> the
>> general Joys of Middle-Aged Womanhood, and I'm not sure I'm going to
> agree.
>> It's so invasive and painful.
> -----------------
> It's invasive, all right, but it's not at all painful. I've had 2 of them.
> Not painful.

No, the sedative takes care of that. I was drowsily awake for
part of the first one I had, and could watch it on the monitor.
I was knocked out for the second one.

IIRC, Chris mentioned that he had one without sedation... that he
said it motivated the doctor to be extra careful and not puncture
his colon. IIRC.

> The news story I heard, BTW, said that many doctors complete a colonoscopy
> in under 6 minutes, which is not enough time to make a thorough search for
> polyps, and these doctors' patients are being put at risk by the doctors
> rushing through it.

I hope that's not typical! I wonder if it was in a clinic that
just does endoscopies and colonoscopies, or in a
gastroenterologist's office. Mine were done in the latter.

How widespread is the new technique of swallowing the camera in a
capsule? Is it still in clinical trials now, or has it gone
mainstream?

FurPaw
--
Better dead than Red.

To reply, unleash the dog.

"Eva" <EvaDStructionNOT@NOTverizon.net> wrote in message
news:wsogh.4652$_55.612@trndny09...
>
> "Edna Pearl" <edna_pearl@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote in message
> news:zKkgh.430$Iz.103@bigfe9...
>> I'm not sure this is actually "OT." My gyn is insisting I have an annual
>> colonoscopy beginning next year when I'm fifty, as just another part of
> the
>> general Joys of Middle-Aged Womanhood, and I'm not sure I'm going to
> agree.
>> It's so invasive and painful.
> -----------------
> It's invasive, all right, but it's not at all painful. I've had 2 of
> them.
> Not painful.
>
> The news story I heard, BTW, said that many doctors complete a colonoscopy
> in under 6 minutes, which is not enough time to make a thorough search for
> polyps, and these doctors' patients are being put at risk by the doctors
> rushing through it.

I'm thinking... and I wouldn't want them to rush through it, re: possible
perforation.

Cathy

>
> Eva
>
>

"FurPaw" <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:mPOdndZ47JTqhx_YnZ2dnUVZ_vupnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Eva wrote:
> > "Edna Pearl" <edna_pearl@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote in message
> > news:zKkgh.430$Iz.103@bigfe9...
> >> I'm not sure this is actually "OT." My gyn is insisting I have an
annual
> >> colonoscopy beginning next year when I'm fifty, as just another part of
> > the
> >> general Joys of Middle-Aged Womanhood, and I'm not sure I'm going to
> > agree.
> >> It's so invasive and painful.
> > -----------------
> > It's invasive, all right, but it's not at all painful. I've had 2 of
them.
> > Not painful.
>
> No, the sedative takes care of that. I was drowsily awake for
> part of the first one I had, and could watch it on the monitor.
> I was knocked out for the second one.
>
> IIRC, Chris mentioned that he had one without sedation... that he
> said it motivated the doctor to be extra careful and not puncture
> his colon. IIRC.
>
> > The news story I heard, BTW, said that many doctors complete a
colonoscopy
> > in under 6 minutes, which is not enough time to make a thorough search
for
> > polyps, and these doctors' patients are being put at risk by the doctors
> > rushing through it.
>
> I hope that's not typical! I wonder if it was in a clinic that
> just does endoscopies and colonoscopies, or in a
> gastroenterologist's office. Mine were done in the latter.
----------------
Here's a link to the AP article:
http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/...ap3253306.html

Eva

FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote in
news:45821982.9020506@gmail.com:

> One case in contradiction: I've had two colonscopies, only one
> polyp, benign. (I don't remember the size, but it had to be
> excised for biopsy.)

Oh! It seems I've been misinformed. Perhaps it's only after a certain
age, or perhaps the doctor who told me that was exaggerating.

> And avoiding beef?

I'm not convinced that eating beef in and of itself is harmful. Now the
pesticides on the grain that the cow eats along with the antibiotics it's
given do give me pause.

Then I get over it. ;-)

Chak

--
I've learned that whenever I decide something with an open heart, I
usually make the right decision.
--Maya Angelou

foggydoggy <foggydoggy@cogeco.ca> wrote:

> "Edna Pearl" <edna_pearl@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote in message
> news:zKkgh.430$Iz.103@bigfe9...

>> I'm not sure this is actually "OT." My gyn is insisting I have an annual
>> colonoscopy beginning next year when I'm fifty, as just another part of
>> the general Joys of Middle-Aged Womanhood, and I'm not sure I'm going to
>> agree. It's so invasive and painful.
>>
>> Everybody in my family dies of some form of cancer or other, on both
>> sides, but nobody gets it until they're in their sixties.
>>
>> I guess it's time to start doing some research to satisfy myself about the
>> decision. Any thoughts?
>>
>> ep

> I haven't heard of anyone getting an annual colonoscopy even if "high risk".
> It takes a while for the polyps to develop and at the moment the consensus
> is that if nothing is found on colonoscopy then you're okay for about 5
> yrs.

In the UK if you suffer from Ulcerative Colitis you're considered to
be at high risk and get an annual colonscopy. They may reduce the
frequency if you show clean a number of years in succession.

--
Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote:
> Eva wrote:
>> "Edna Pearl" <edna_pearl@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote in message
>> news:zKkgh.430$Iz.103@bigfe9...
>>> I'm not sure this is actually "OT." My gyn is insisting I have an annual
>>> colonoscopy beginning next year when I'm fifty, as just another part of
>> the
>>> general Joys of Middle-Aged Womanhood, and I'm not sure I'm going to
>> agree.
>>> It's so invasive and painful.
>> -----------------
>> It's invasive, all right, but it's not at all painful. I've had 2 of them.
>> Not painful.

> No, the sedative takes care of that. I was drowsily awake for
> part of the first one I had, and could watch it on the monitor.
> I was knocked out for the second one.

> IIRC, Chris mentioned that he had one without sedation... that he
> said it motivated the doctor to be extra careful and not puncture
> his colon. IIRC.

The special motivation was provided by our use of special code words
to control the progress of the camera. I'd say "Ouch!" and he'd say
"Oops! Sorry!". :-)

It was only a bit painful, more a rather horrible kind of discomfort
which made you think someone was ramming yards of gigantic dildo up
your fundament and round some rather awkward corners inside. :-(

It wasn't nice, but I preferred that to the idea of being knocked out
cold and the nurse saying "Jesus doctor, that looks bloody painful!"
and the doctor saying "No problem. he's out cold and can't feel a
thing. Come over here and put your shoulder behind this, it seems to
have got stuck."

--
Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 02:13:46 GMT, Chakolate
<chakolateDeathToSpammers@gmail.com> wrote:

>That's not what it says. It says that people who were screened developed
>cancer at the same rate as those who were not screened.


Well, just because someone looks at your colon doesn't guarantee
immunity from cancer. They are not "doing" anything about the adenoma
that they see, are they? Then why wouldn't these patients be at the
same risk as every one else?

Am I getting it? Or am I missing something.... ?

Dana
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 03:16:44 GMT, "Eva"
<EvaDStructionNOT@NOTverizon.net> wrote:

>It's invasive, all right, but it's not at all painful.


I had one when I was 22 (ate a bunch of shrimp and had purple poo the
next day, I decided to tell the doc .....yada, yada, yada) and it was
painful to some degree. I don't know if they still do the kind where
you kneel on a table and they flip your butt in the air and insert the
thingy and keep going until they run out of whatever. I could feel the
end of it rubbing inside me and against the table. Strange sensation.
I vowed at that moment I would never have "that" done again. So far
I've kept that promise.

Ex-DH had one a few months ago and said he was almost asleep when they
did it. But, his father died from colon cancer, mother died with lung
cancer and he smokes. So...his new "friend" was able to talk him into
having that done...something I never could get him to do.
Humrffff....


Dana

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

Chakolate <chakolateDeathToSpammers@gmail.com> wrote:

> thinkbig.shrinktofit@online.no (Keera Ann Fox) wrote in
> news:1hqcwa5.3j05ef6c9i26N%thinkbig.shrinktofit@on line.no:
>
> > The article is about the efficiency of colonoscopies, or rather,
> > doctors' abilities to properly find adenomas. A badly screened person is
> > no "safer" from getting cancer than unscreened people because of the
> > _quality_ of screening.
> >
>
> That's not what it says. It says that people who were screened

Badly. Screened badly.

> developed cancer at the same rate as those who were not screened.

Did not get a potentially cancerous growth removed because the screening
was done badly, therefore, they developed cancer just like an unscreened
person, i.e. just like someone whose cancer is undetected.

--
Keera in Norway * Think big. Shrink to fit.
http://home.online.no/~kafox/

Thanks for the replies, and I hope anybody who gets additional info or
thoughts will post same!

In answer to inquiries, I have never had a colonoscopy. My SO has Crohn's
disease, so he's had a few, and he has to be put under general anesthesia
for it to be bearable. I would not consider having one done without at
least some medication, but general anesthesia doesn't agree with me, so I
would try to avoid that. I would expect to have at least some elevation of
pain during such a procedure (as one might expect my SO would have because
of his Crohn's) because of some problems I have with my tummy in other
respects, which I don't want to go into :-) but which do encourage me to eat
a very healthy, fiber-rich diet.

Thanks again!

ep


"Chakolate" <chakolateDeathToSpammers@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98999458AA2Bchakolatehotmailcom@207.115.17 .102...
> Gina Kolata does her usual thorough job in this article on colonoscopy:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/14/he...l?_r=1&ei=5094
> &en=b2841411c74a5b27&hp=&ex=1166072400
> &oref=slogin&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print
>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/y3q55g
>
> Interesting quote:
> The patients in all the studies had at least one adenoma detected on
> colonoscopy but did not have cancer. They developed cancer in the next
> few years, however, at the same rate as would be expected in the general
> population without screening.
> (end of quote)
>
> Am I reading that right? That being screened makes *no* difference in
> the rate of cancer?
>
> Chak
>
> --
> I've learned that whenever I decide something with an open heart, I
> usually make the right decision.
> --Maya Angelou

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 17:29:24 +0100, thinkbig.shrinktofit@online.no
(Keera Ann Fox) wrote:

>Chakolate <chakolateDeathToSpammers@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> thinkbig.shrinktofit@online.no (Keera Ann Fox) wrote in
>> news:1hqcwa5.3j05ef6c9i26N%thinkbig.shrinktofit@on line.no:
>>
>> > The article is about the efficiency of colonoscopies, or rather,
>> > doctors' abilities to properly find adenomas. A badly screened person is
>> > no "safer" from getting cancer than unscreened people because of the
>> > _quality_ of screening.
>> >
>>
>> That's not what it says. It says that people who were screened
>
>Badly. Screened badly.
>
>> developed cancer at the same rate as those who were not screened.
>
>Did not get a potentially cancerous growth removed because the screening
>was done badly, therefore, they developed cancer just like an unscreened
>person, i.e. just like someone whose cancer is undetected.

OTOH (1) perhaps those enrolled in these two earlier studies had a
higher risk of colon cancer, and that is why they enrolled in the
study. BTW the earlier studies weren't about screening for cancer,
they were abour trying to prove that having a colonoscopy can
*prevent* cancer. Despite this new study, that still has not been
shown. There are easier, and less expensive tests that can be used to
*screen* for colon cancer.

and (2) perhaps some people in the regular population who are not
screened for cancer, have undetected cancer, live and die never
knowing they have cancer, and is that really a bad thing? Of course
people with a family history or other risk factors need monitoring,
but that is different than routinely screening everyone over 50 for
cancer.

Kathryn

Dana© <AneeBear@ownmail.com> wrote in
news:vlh5o2dce9rs7fgnjfkk0e7kafq09a692p@4ax.com:

> They are not "doing" anything about the adenoma
> that they see, are they?

Yes, they are. Polyps that are found are removed.

Chak

--
I've learned that whenever I decide something with an open heart, I
usually make the right decision.
--Maya Angelou

thinkbig.shrinktofit@online.no (Keera Ann Fox) wrote in
news:1hqedu4.3yxl3213b1rkdN%thinkbig.shrinktofit@o nline.no:

> Chakolate <chakolateDeathToSpammers@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> thinkbig.shrinktofit@online.no (Keera Ann Fox) wrote in
>> news:1hqcwa5.3j05ef6c9i26N%thinkbig.shrinktofit@on line.no:
>>
>> > The article is about the efficiency of colonoscopies, or rather,
>> > doctors' abilities to properly find adenomas. A badly screened
>> > person is no "safer" from getting cancer than unscreened people
>> > because of the _quality_ of screening.
>> >
>>
>> That's not what it says. It says that people who were screened
>
> Badly. Screened badly.

Again, read what that paragraph says. Look, I didn't read the full
study, and perhaps that paragraph was badly written, but what you're
saying is not what the article said.

>
>> developed cancer at the same rate as those who were not screened.
>
> Did not get a potentially cancerous growth removed because the
> screening was done badly, therefore, they developed cancer just like
> an unscreened person, i.e. just like someone whose cancer is
> undetected.
>

Chak

--
I've learned that whenever I decide something with an open heart, I
usually make the right decision.
--Maya Angelou

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 23:17:22 GMT, Chakolate
<chakolateDeathToSpammers@gmail.com> wrote:

>Yes, they are. Polyps that are found are removed.


Oh, ok then.



Dana
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

"Keera Ann Fox" <thinkbig.shrinktofit@online.no> wrote in message
news:1hqfrjo.9i5y9317zmmkgN%thinkbig.shrinktofit@o nline.no...
> Chakolate <chakolateDeathToSpammers@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> thinkbig.shrinktofit@online.no (Keera Ann Fox) wrote in
>> news:1hqedu4.3yxl3213b1rkdN%thinkbig.shrinktofit@o nline.no:
>>
>> > Chakolate <chakolateDeathToSpammers@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> thinkbig.shrinktofit@online.no (Keera Ann Fox) wrote in
>> >> news:1hqcwa5.3j05ef6c9i26N%thinkbig.shrinktofit@on line.no:
>> >>
>> >> > The article is about the efficiency of colonoscopies, or rather,
>> >> > doctors' abilities to properly find adenomas. A badly screened
>> >> > person is no "safer" from getting cancer than unscreened people
>> >> > because of the _quality_ of screening.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> That's not what it says. It says that people who were screened
>> >
>> > Badly. Screened badly.
>>
>> Again, read what that paragraph says. Look, I didn't read the full
>> study, and perhaps that paragraph was badly written, but what you're
>> saying is not what the article said.
>
> Well, I read the full article and that's what the article was saying to
> me. I think the paragraph in question was very badly written, but the
> whole article is about quality of screening and how it turns out that
> doctors who do the examination too fast don't find all the polyps,
> putting their patients at risk for developing cancer.

I printed out the full article, read it, & arrived at the same conclusion.
It seems - acc. to this article - to hinge on the examining doctor's
thoroughness when doing the colonoscopy. If the procedure is rushed
through, polyps are likely missed, or possibly incompletely excised if
found.

Cathy


>
> --
> Keera in Norway * Think big. Shrink to fit.
> http://home.online.no/~kafox/

Karen R. wrote:

> My understanding is that while the actual colonoscopy isn't painful,
> the preparation is.

Yep - that laxative is ... very effective. My doc didn't warn me
that it is necessary to be VERY CLOSE to a toilet. For me the
worst was how incredibly sore and tender my rectum became. Even
Charmin Ultra felt like sandpaper after a while! (Sorry if that's
TMI!) Next time I have one, I'm going to ask for a prescription
of a local anesthetic in advance - no kidding!

FurPaw
--
Better dead than Red.

To reply, unleash the dog.

"FurPaw" <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:B4OdnSQUAr7WrBnYnZ2dnUVZ_tijnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Yep - that laxative is ... very effective. My doc didn't warn me that it
> is necessary to be VERY CLOSE to a toilet. For me the worst was how
> incredibly sore and tender my rectum became. Even Charmin Ultra felt like
> sandpaper after a while! (Sorry if that's TMI!) Next time I have one, I'm
> going to ask for a prescription of a local anesthetic in advance - no
> kidding!

TMI my foot! There's some information I can *use* -- lol. Thanks.

ep

Edna Pearl wrote:
> "FurPaw" <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:B4OdnSQUAr7WrBnYnZ2dnUVZ_tijnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>> Yep - that laxative is ... very effective. My doc didn't warn me that it
>> is necessary to be VERY CLOSE to a toilet. For me the worst was how
>> incredibly sore and tender my rectum became. Even Charmin Ultra felt like
>> sandpaper after a while! (Sorry if that's TMI!) Next time I have one, I'm
>> going to ask for a prescription of a local anesthetic in advance - no
>> kidding!
>
> TMI my foot! There's some information I can *use* -- lol. Thanks.

Another tip - stock up on wet wipes (unscented). Cleaning your
nether regions with something damp helps delay the onset of soreness.

FurPaw

--
Better dead than Red.

To reply, unleash the dog.

In article <1166289327.710517.285550@73g2000cwn.googlegroups. com>,
"Karen R." <krez56@gmail.com> wrote:

> My understanding is that while the actual colonoscopy isn't painful,
> the preparation is.

That wasn't my experience. The prep is simply evacuating your bowels
thoroughly. I experienced no cramping or other pain. Now, the goop I
had to drink tasted *foul*, but the rest was just sitting on the john.
I moved the TV so it was in front of the open bathroom door and resigned
myself to not moving for a while.

The procedure itself *was* painful, as the scope was pushed around turns
in the colon, but I was on good drugs so my memory of it is quite vague.
I do remember that it was very uncomfortable at the time, but I remember
that as a fact, not as the experience itself. Sort of like something I
saw in a movie.

The worst part of it was something that won't apply to many people. I
started my period, and I get bad cramps, but since ibuprophen was
forbidden, I tried to make due with acetaminophen. Not sufficient!

Priscilla

"Chakolate" <chakolateDeathToSpammers@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns989AA1BEDC4chakolatehotmailcom@207.115.17. 102...

>
>> And avoiding beef?
>
> I'm not convinced that eating beef in and of itself is harmful. Now the
> pesticides on the grain that the cow eats along with the antibiotics it's
> given do give me pause.
>
> Then I get over it. ;-)
>
> Chak
>
LOL! Me too, although I'm trying to eat more organic meat and I found a
health food store that carries affordable and delicious organic meats. What
a difference in taste especially in the beef & chicken. Now about the
organic fruits & veggies, even if you use no pesticides and only natural
fertilizer what about the "acid rain", the crap in the water is absorbed by
the vegetation.

Sometimes it doesn't matter what one does.The physically fit,organic food
eater succumbs to cancer and the 250 lb, junk food eater lives on with no
health sequelae. My friend's father in law just passed away at the ripe old
age of 103, lived alone in his house until Alzheimers at 102,widower for 25
yrs, ate out of cans & boxes, favourite regular breakfast was Frosted
Flakes.No physical health problems,glaucoma eye drops was his only med.

Roseanne

>From my experience 5 years ago with the colonoscopy.. I say don't sweat
it. They gave me the meds to knock me out but since I have been on
other meds for 35 years for seizures I guess they just didn't work. I
was awake and asking questions throughout the entire exam. I think I
freaked out one of the nurses when I asked the first question about
what I was watching on the tv screen. She thought for sure I would be
out but wide awake. It wasn't painful, maybe just a little
uncomfortable but certainly nothing to worry about. I was glad the meds
didn't work because in the recovery room I was changing clothes and
getting ready to go to lunch and I was listening to the other patients
around me who were nauseous and in la-la land. Lord knows how long they
had to stay there. The worst part is definitly drinking the pre-test
solution. I haven't touched anything lemon-or lime flavored for 5
years. It still nauseates me. My husband is scheduled for his first one
in Jan and he is going to try it sans meds. Hope yours goes well. The
peace of mind a negative test brought was immeasurable.

We live 30 miles from the surgery clinic where I had mine...that is 30 miles
of rural area...I had my husband line a bucket with a trash bag just in case
I couldn't make it. I lucked out...the first time I had the urge it was by
the local country store..and they had a restroom...then when I had to go
again there was a CircleK with a bathroom..hubby had to buy allot of
coffee..LOL.
I had had the small test done when I turned 50..they don't drug you for that
one...then when I turned 55 I was told it was time for the big one...the
surgeon said I had one of the cleanest and healthiest colons she had seen in
a long time...so not to worry about another test for at least 10 years.
Earthlink has been having problems with these newsgroups for a long
time...and they won't own up to it
--
Jacquie
"Karen R." <krez56@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1166289327.710517.285550@73g2000cwn.googlegro ups.com...
> FurPaw wrote:
>
>> How widespread is the new technique of swallowing the camera in a
>> capsule? Is it still in clinical trials now, or has it gone
>> mainstream?
>
> My mother was one of the first to use that a few years ago. That was
> the final proof that she had celiac. This was dine with her doctor, and
> I don't think it was part of a trial, so it seems to be available.
>
> My understanding is that while the actual colonoscopy isn't painful,
> the preparation is. We have only one bathroom and when DH had his, he
> tied it up for hours the night before. My daughters and I ended up
> driving to my mother's to shower and prepare for bed. When my number
> comes up I may spend the night before at my mother's -- she's got three
> bathrooms and lives much closer to the outpatient facility my HMO uses.
>
> Darn ISP lost newsgroup access for the last week and I have had to read
> on Goggle Groups. My hats off to those of you who persevere through
> this on a regular basis. I don't have many filters for ASM, but some of
> the other groups I read end up with about 75% of the posts filtered
> out, and I can't do that with Google Groups!
>
> Karen R.
>

My surgeon told me to use Destin the stuff you use on baby's for diaper
rash..it worked real well...I also used tucks to wipe...I was lucky that I
had a surgeon who told me exactly what I would be going through before and
after taking the meds...she is a Dr that is into comfort...she said if I
don't have a good experience then I would tell others and they wouldn't get
it done... I also have hemorrhoids and they became a little irritated.
--
Jacquie


"FurPaw" <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:B4OdnSQUAr7WrBnYnZ2dnUVZ_tijnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Karen R. wrote:
>
>> My understanding is that while the actual colonoscopy isn't painful,
>> the preparation is.
>
> Yep - that laxative is ... very effective. My doc didn't warn me that it
> is necessary to be VERY CLOSE to a toilet. For me the worst was how
> incredibly sore and tender my rectum became. Even Charmin Ultra felt like
> sandpaper after a while! (Sorry if that's TMI!) Next time I have one, I'm
> going to ask for a prescription of a local anesthetic in advance - no
> kidding!
>
> FurPaw
> --
> Better dead than Red.
>
> To reply, unleash the dog.

When I had the small test when I was 50 ..they didn't give me drugs....the
problem I had with that one was the surgeon had to use more air because my
colon didn't want to open...by the time I was walking out of the clinic I
was hunched over like a little old lady...the gas had gone up to my
shoulders. I told my new surgeon who did the big test ...she told me to take
those gas pills...they worked real well. I slept through the big one. They
gave me something that relaxed me enough to sleep..and it was a drug that
you woke up out of quickly. I didn't remember anything. My husband didn't
remember any of his either.
--
Jacquie
"Priscilla Ballou" <vze23t8n@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:vze23t8n-222EDA.18051316122006@individual.net...
> In article <1166289327.710517.285550@73g2000cwn.googlegroups. com>,
> "Karen R." <krez56@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> My understanding is that while the actual colonoscopy isn't painful,
>> the preparation is.
>
> That wasn't my experience. The prep is simply evacuating your bowels
> thoroughly. I experienced no cramping or other pain. Now, the goop I
> had to drink tasted *foul*, but the rest was just sitting on the john.
> I moved the TV so it was in front of the open bathroom door and resigned
> myself to not moving for a while.
>
> The procedure itself *was* painful, as the scope was pushed around turns
> in the colon, but I was on good drugs so my memory of it is quite vague.
> I do remember that it was very uncomfortable at the time, but I remember
> that as a fact, not as the experience itself. Sort of like something I
> saw in a movie.
>
> The worst part of it was something that won't apply to many people. I
> started my period, and I get bad cramps, but since ibuprophen was
> forbidden, I tried to make due with acetaminophen. Not sufficient!
>
> Priscilla

I was in recovery for 30 minutes, and they knocked me out. There are two
types of tests...the one that just does the lower part of the colon..I had
that one when I was 50...it was a little uncomfortable..I did enjoy watching
the screen though...the surgeon explained everything to me as he went. The
worst part about that test was the gas backup. The big test that does the
whole colon didn't bother me at all I slept through it and woke up 5 to 10
minutes after they put me in recovery...no Nausea. I am a diabetic and since
I didn't eat for a while they had OJ and crackers waiting for me. I had a
great surgeon for my last one. Heck I would rather go through that again
then another Uterine Biopsy

"Vic" <milvc@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1166330696.198750.28050@t46g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> >From my experience 5 years ago with the colonoscopy.. I say don't sweat
> it. They gave me the meds to knock me out but since I have been on
> other meds for 35 years for seizures I guess they just didn't work. I
> was awake and asking questions throughout the entire exam. I think I
> freaked out one of the nurses when I asked the first question about
> what I was watching on the tv screen. She thought for sure I would be
> out but wide awake. It wasn't painful, maybe just a little
> uncomfortable but certainly nothing to worry about. I was glad the meds
> didn't work because in the