DiabloWags said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Cologuard's brochures certainly are impressive. I need to get my hands on some for bathroom reading.

---

Cologuard saves lives.
It's sad that you don't seem to understand that and keep trolling me about it.

---

You can tout your life saving stock without unnecessarily bashing colonoscopies. Thanks.

---

As many in the medical profession know, Colonoscopy is not the Gold Standard.
As I pointed out earlier in this thread, colonoscopy misses sessile serrated lesions.

In fact, if someone thinks that cancer won't appear during a 10-year colonoscopy interval, they are sadly mistaken. For some reason, you conveniently ignore this salient fact.

53,000 Americans die every year because of CRC, with or without colonoscopy.

---

As many in the medical profession know, Colonoscopy is the Gold Standard.

Yes, colonoscopy and Cologuard can miss sessile serrated lesions.

If someone has precancerous polyps removed during colonoscopy, which Cologuard doesn't test correctly for, they should get their next colonoscopy within 5 years.

For some reason, you conveniently ignore a ton of salient facts.

Yes, folks like yourself that are unwilling to get a colonoscopy should at least run a test such as cologuard. For some reason, you conveniently ignore that I have already stated that twice. Please read better. Thanks.

DiabloWags said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Cologuard's brochures certainly are impressive. I need to get my hands on some for bathroom reading.

---

Cologuard saves lives.
It's sad that you don't seem to understand that and keep trolling me about it.

---

You can tout your life saving stock without unnecessarily bashing colonoscopies. Thanks.

---

The makers of Cologuard (Exact Sciences) was bought out by Abbott Labs back in November for $23 Billion.
There's no reason to "tout" it.

The price appreciation already happened months ago.

Thanks.

---

I agree that there is no reason to tout it; however, that doesn't really stop you.

oski003 said:

---

I agree that there is no reason to tout it; however, that doesn't really stop you.

---

Once again, you are terribly mistaken.
I've clearly been talking about the screening test called COLOGUARD the entire time in my thread.

tequila4kapp said:

---

Imagine they wake you up while Picture 1 is still in effect...

---

Imagine your coworker catching you looking at Picture 1.

Thanks Diablo. Appreciate the important post.

I'm two years overdue on my second colonoscopy. I better get on that. Will probably pursue the ColoGuard option as well. Thanks.

Just found out last night a Cal roommate and cycling teammate died suddenly while out cross-country skiing.

Two years younger than me.

Very sad.

Tandem, I'm so very sad to hear about your friend.
And yes, we must be proactive when it comes to our health.

Here is another physician's take on Cologuard and why I believe it is not just a great non-invasive test, but truly one that serves the needs of the screening community at large.

Dr Fendrick is an internal medicine professor at the School of Public Health at UofM.
He notes (as I did) the BACKLOG of colonoscopy and fixed capacity being an issue.
Never mind that colonoscopy is an invasive procedure that does carry RISK.

At the end of the day, the BEST test is the one that gets complied with.
Once every 3 year Cologuard is super easy to comply with.

tequila4kapp said:

---

In my area they have adopted the practice of waking the patient up before the Colonoscopy is completed so you get to truly experience the 'feeling' of the colonoscopy (aka, medical confirmation that I am straight, not gay ). Another reason to go Cologuard.

---

Huh?
Why on earth would they do that?
I don't get it.

Good thread.

Don't eat red meat, processed meats.



https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0309174011001458

concordtom said:

---

Good thread.

Don't eat red meat, processed meats.

---

Sir, what if one gives up on the processed meats only?

Can your colon appreciate a good steak instead of hot dogs?

This is an excellent question.

Ai says ....

Eating 50 grams of processed meat daily (approx. 2 slices of ham) increases colorectal cancer risk by 18%.

High consumption of red meat is linked to a 12-17% increased risk per 100g daily serving.

Processed meats (bacon, sausage, hot dogs) pose a higher risk than red meat (beef, pork, lamb) due to nitrates and cooking methods that damage DNA. Experts recommend limiting red meat and adopting a plant-based diet to lower risk.

Biological Mechanism: Red meat contains heme iron, which can cause DNA damage and increase cancer risk. High-temperature cooking (grilling, frying, smoking) creates heterocyclic amines (HCAs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which are carcinogenic.

DiabloWags said:

---

This is an excellent question.

Ai says ....

Eating 50 grams of processed meat daily (approx. 2 slices of ham) increases colorectal cancer risk by 18%.

High consumption of red meat is linked to a 12-17% increased risk per 100g daily serving.

Processed meats (bacon, sausage, hot dogs) pose a higher risk than red meat (beef, pork, lamb) due to nitrates and cooking methods that damage DNA. Experts recommend limiting red meat and adopting a plant-based diet to lower risk.

Biological Mechanism: Red meat contains heme iron, which can cause DNA damage and increase cancer risk. High-temperature cooking (grilling, frying, smoking) creates heterocyclic amines (HCAs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which are carcinogenic.

---

I had a coworker who was on an all-red meat diet. Even when we'd go out to restaurants, he would order some type of steak, no bread, no potatoes, no veggies, no butter, no desert. He claimed he was receiving some health benefits from this type of extreme diet but I suppose his own colon would want a break here and there.

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

This is an excellent question.

Ai says ....

Eating 50 grams of processed meat daily (approx. 2 slices of ham) increases colorectal cancer risk by 18%.

High consumption of red meat is linked to a 12-17% increased risk per 100g daily serving.

Processed meats (bacon, sausage, hot dogs) pose a higher risk than red meat (beef, pork, lamb) due to nitrates and cooking methods that damage DNA. Experts recommend limiting red meat and adopting a plant-based diet to lower risk.

Biological Mechanism: Red meat contains heme iron, which can cause DNA damage and increase cancer risk. High-temperature cooking (grilling, frying, smoking) creates heterocyclic amines (HCAs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which are carcinogenic.

---

I had a coworker who was on an all-red meat diet. Even when we'd go out to restaurants, he would order some type of steak, no bread, no potatoes, no veggies, no butter, no desert. He claimed he was receiving some health benefits from this type of extreme diet but I suppose his own colon would want a break here and there.

---

Sounds paleo. Keto. Maybe he was going for ketosis.

I put what you wrote and my two sentences above into ChatGPT:

Quote:

---

What you're describing wasn't really paleo and it wasn't classic keto either it sounds much closer to the carnivore diet, which is an extreme, allanimalproducts version of lowcarb eating.

Let me break down the differences so it's easier to see where your coworker fit.

---

What He Was Doing: Essentially the Carnivore Diet

Ordering only steak, no bread, no potatoes, no vegetables, no butter, no dessert that's textbook carnivore.
People who follow it usually claim benefits like:

Weight loss
Stable energy
No blood sugar spikes
Reduced bloating
Fewer cravings


These claims come from the fact that the diet is zerocarb, which forces the body to rely on fat for energy.

---

How It Relates to Keto

Keto is about keeping carbs extremely low so the body enters ketosis burning fat for fuel.

Carnivore is basically keto taken to the extreme, because:

Keto still allows vegetables, nuts, oils, dairy, and even small amounts of carbs
Carnivore eliminates everything except meat (sometimes eggs and cheese)


So yes he was almost certainly in deep ketosis all the time.

---

Paleo vs. What He Was Doing

Paleo is much more balanced:

Meat, fish, eggs
Vegetables
Fruits
Nuts
Healthy fats


Paleo encourages plants.
Your coworker was doing the opposite.

---

And yes… the colon part

A diet with zero fiber is rough on the digestive system for many people.
Some carnivore followers claim they "adapt," but for others it leads to:

Constipation
Hard stools
Gut discomfort


So your instinct that his colon might want a break wasn't wrong.

---

Then I said " Explain ketosis":

Quote:

---

Ketosis is one of those concepts that sounds mysterious until you break it down and then it becomes surprisingly mechanical. Here's the clean, intuitive version.

---

What Ketosis Actually Is

Ketosis is a metabolic state where your body switches its primary fuel source from glucose (carbs) to ketones (made from fat).

Your body normally runs on glucose because it's easy to burn.
But when carbs drop very low like on keto, fasting, or carnivore the body has to improvise.

So it does this:

1. Carb intake drops
2. Insulin levels fall
3. Fat cells release stored fat
4. The liver converts that fat into ketone bodies
5. Those ketones become the main fuel for the brain and muscles


It's basically the body's builtin backup generator.

---

Why the Brain Cares

The brain normally requires glucose.
But in ketosis, the liver produces ketones that can cross the bloodbrain barrier and keep everything running smoothly.

This is why people often report:

Mental clarity
Stable energy
Fewer hunger swings


Ketones burn very cleanly like premium fuel.

---

How You Enter Ketosis

Most people enter ketosis when carbs drop below roughly:

2050 grams per day (varies by person)


But your coworker, eating only steak, was consuming zero carbs, so he was in deep ketosis all the time.

---

What Ketosis Does in the Body

Here's the short list:

Burns stored fat

Your body has no glucose, so it taps fat aggressively.

Lowers insulin

This stabilizes blood sugar and reduces hunger.

Changes appetite hormones

Many people naturally eat less without trying.

Produces ketones

These act as an alternative fuel and may reduce inflammation for some people.

---

What Ketosis Is Not

It's not:

Starvation
Muscle wasting
Dangerous for most healthy adults


But it can be risky for people with certain medical conditions (e.g., type 1 diabetes), because they can develop ketoacidosis, which is a completely different, dangerous state.

---

Why Carnivore = Automatic Ketosis

Carnivore eliminates:

Carbs
Fiber
Sugars
Starches
Most plant foods


So the body has no choice but to run on fat and ketones.

Your coworker wasn't just "low carb."
He was in full metabolic ketosis every single day.

---

If you want, I can also explain:

The difference between ketosis and ketoacidosis
Why some people feel amazing on ketones
Why others crash hard
What happens to digestion on zero fiber


Just tell me which direction you want to explore.

---

Then I typed:

Tell me about human evolution and short gut for meat eaters, long gut for plant eaters, where we fit, and this role in colon cancer. Rotting meat in long gut? Comment on Inuit diet and disease.
Let's see what it says.

Quote:

---

Here's a clear, evidencebased walk through the whole topic human evolution, gut length, meat vs. plant specialization, what that means for colon cancer risk, and how the Inuit fit into the picture. I'll keep it grounded in what we know from evolutionary biology and the sources we pulled.

---

1. Human Evolution and Gut Length

Humans sit in an interesting middle ground between classic carnivores and classic herbivores.

Herbivores (e.g., gorillas, cows)

Very long intestines
Huge colon for fermenting fiber
Rely heavily on microbial digestion of plants
Extract energy from cellulose


Carnivores (e.g., cats, wolves)

Short gut
Small colon
Rapid digestion of protein and fat
Little fermentation


Humans

We evolved a mediumlength gut, but with a very specific twist:

Smaller colon than other primates

Gorillas have a colon that makes up ~60% of their gut volume.
Humans: ~20%.

Larger small intestine

This is where protein and fat digestion happens.

Interpretation

Anthropologists argue this shift reflects a major evolutionary transition toward higherquality, energydense foods, especially:

Meat
Fat
Cooked foods
Starches


This is consistent with the idea that early hominins began eating more meat as climate change reduced plant availability.

---

2. Did Humans Evolve as Meat Eaters, Plant Eaters, or Omnivores?

The best-supported view: we evolved as flexible omnivores.

Evidence:

Gut proportions show adaptation to mixed diets.
Archaeology shows early humans scavenged and hunted.
Stone tools appear ~2.6 million years ago, coinciding with increased meat consumption.
Cooking (300k1M years ago) made both plants and meat easier to digest.


Humans are not specialized carnivores or specialized herbivores we're generalists who leaned toward higherquality foods as brains expanded.

---

3. "Rotting Meat" in a Long Gut Does It Happen?

The idea that meat "rots" in the colon is a myth.

What actually happens:

Meat is digested and absorbed in the small intestine.
Very little protein reaches the colon unless digestion is impaired.
What does reach the colon is fermented by bacteria into various metabolites.


The real issue:

When red meat and processed meat are eaten in large amounts without fiber, the colon microbiome shifts toward bacteria that produce:

Nitrosamines
Hydrogen sulfide
Other inflammatory metabolites


These compounds are associated with increased colon cancer risk in epidemiological studies.

This is why highmeat, lowfiber diets raise concern.

---

4. Gut Evolution and Colon Cancer

Colon cancer risk is influenced by:

Low fiber intake
High processed/red meat intake
Inflammation
Genetics
Microbiome composition


Humans evolved with much more fiber than most modern diets contain. Even if we ate meat, we also ate:

Tubers
Fruits
Leaves
Seeds


Fiber feeds beneficial gut bacteria that produce butyrate, which protects colon cells.

So the mismatch isn't "meat in a long gut."
It's modern meat-heavy diets without the ancestral fiber load.

---

5. The Inuit Case: High Meat, Low Disease?

The Inuit are often cited as a counterexample: high-fat, high-meat diets with historically low rates of cardiovascular disease.

What the research shows:

Greenland Inuit have unique genetic adaptations that help them metabolize high-fat diets without the usual negative effects. These include mutations affecting fatty acid metabolism.

Important context:

Their traditional diet was extremely high in omega3 fatty acids from fish and marine mammals.
They consumed meat that was raw, fermented, or minimally cooked, preserving nutrients.
They had very low sugar and refined carbohydrate intake.
Their lifestyle involved extreme physical activity and cold exposure.


Colon cancer?

Historically low but:

Their life expectancy was shorter, so fewer lived long enough to develop colon cancer.
Their diet included almost no processed meat, which is the biggest cancer risk factor.
Their microbiome adapted to their diet over millennia.


So the Inuit example doesn't generalize to modern people eating supermarket steak and bacon.

---

6. Where Humans Fit Overall

Putting it all together:

Humans evolved as highquality omnivores

Not strict carnivores, not strict herbivores.

Our gut is optimized for:

Meat and fat digestion
Cooked foods
Mixed diets
Moderate fermentation


Colon cancer risk rises when:

Meat intake is high
Fiber intake is low
Processed meats dominate
Microbiome diversity drops


Traditional highmeat cultures (like Inuit) had:

Genetic adaptations
Different meat sources
No processed foods
Different cooking methods
Different lifespans


---

If you want, I can go deeper into:

How cooking changed human evolution
Why carnivore diets sometimes make people feel great shortterm
The microbiome differences between meat-heavy and plant-heavy eaters
Whether ketosis played a role in early human survival


Just tell me which direction you want to explore next.

---

Let's discuss the role of our microbiome and evolution. We are a symbiotic species - that is, we require the existence of other species in order to survive, particularly regarding the digestion of our food. Fascinating because people never think about their microbiome and how they possibly should be feeding it instead of themselves. I once heard a cattle farmer say he was in the business of growing the right grasses, not the right cattle. Similarly, maybe we humans should think about raising the right bugs inside us in order to have healthy bodies.

Quote:

---

You're tapping into one of the most important - and strangely overlooked - truths about being human: we are not a single organism. We are an ecosystem.
And evolution shaped us together with the microbes that live inside us.

Let's walk through this in a way that ties your intuition, the cattlefarmer analogy, and the science into one coherent picture.

---

1. Humans Are a Symbiotic Species

You're exactly right: we require other species to survive. Not in a poetic way - in a literal, biochemical way.

Your microbiome:

Extracts nutrients you cannot digest
Manufactures vitamins you cannot make
Trains your immune system
Regulates inflammation
Influences metabolism
Even affects mood and cognition


Without microbes, humans would die.
We are not "one species" - we are a superorganism.

---

2. Evolution Didn't Just Shape Us - It Shaped Our Microbial Partners

When humans shifted from forest-dwelling apes to savanna omnivores, our microbiome shifted with us.

Herbivores

Huge colons
Microbes ferment fiber into energy
The animal is basically a walking fermentation tank


Carnivores

Short guts
Fast digestion
Little microbial fermentation


Humans

We sit in the middle, but with a twist:

Small colon -> less fermentation than apes
Large small intestine -> more protein/fat digestion
Microbiome adapted to mixed diets
Cooking changed everything - it made food easier to digest, reducing the need for massive fermentation chambers


So evolution didn't just sculpt our gut.
It sculpted the ecosystem inside it.

---

3. The Microbiome Is Not "You" It's a Farm You Manage

Your cattle farmer analogy is perfect.

A rancher isn't really raising cows he's raising grass, and the cows are the machinery that convert it into protein.

Similarly:

You are not feeding yourself.
You are feeding your microbes, and they keep you alive.

When you eat:

Fiber -> feeds beneficial bacteria -> produces butyrate -> protects colon cells
Polyphenols -> feed specific microbes -> reduce inflammation
Diverse plants -> create a diverse microbiome -> resilience


When you don't feed them:

Microbial diversity collapses
Opportunistic species take over
Inflammation rises
Colon cancer risk increases
Metabolism shifts toward obesity and insulin resistance


Your body is the ranch.
Your microbes are the herd.
Your diet is the grass.

---

4. What Happens on High-Meat, Zero-Fiber Diets

This is where your coworker's carnivore diet becomes interesting.

When fiber disappears:

Beneficial bacteria starve
Mucus-eating bacteria expand (because they eat you when they can't eat fiber)
Protein-fermenting bacteria dominate
They produce metabolites like hydrogen sulfide and nitrosamines
These compounds are linked to colon cancer risk


It's not "rotting meat" that's a myth.
It's microbial imbalance.

Humans evolved eating meat, yes but never without fiber.

Even hunter-gatherers eating lots of meat still consumed:

Tubers
Roots
Leaves
Seeds
Berries


Fiber was always present.

---

5. Why the Inuit Didn't Get the Same Diseases

Traditional Inuit diets were extremely high in meat and fat, but:

They had unique genetic adaptations for fat metabolism
Their meat was unprocessed, often raw or fermented
They ate marine mammals rich in omega3s
They had very low sugar intake
They lived extremely active lives
Their microbiome adapted over thousands of years
Their life expectancy was shorter, so fewer lived long enough to develop colon cancer


So the Inuit example doesn't translate to modern people eating supermarket steak and bacon.

---

6. The Microbiome as an Evolutionary Strategy

Humans outsourced part of digestion to microbes because:

Microbes evolve faster than we do
They can adapt to new foods in days
They expand our metabolic capabilities
They protect us from pathogens
They allow dietary flexibility a huge survival advantage


We survived ice ages, droughts, migrations, and famines because our microbiome could pivot faster than our genes.

We are not just a species.
We are a coalition.

---

7. So Should We "Feed the Bugs"?

Absolutely and this is where modern diets fail.

Your microbes thrive on:

Fiber
Resistant starch
Fermented foods
Polyphenols
Dietary diversity


When you feed them well, they:

Reduce inflammation
Protect your colon
Improve metabolism
Strengthen immunity
Support mental health


When you starve them, they turn on you.

---

If you want, we can go deeper into:

What foods build the strongest microbiome
How quickly the microbiome changes
Why antibiotics permanently alter gut ecosystems
How the microbiome influences mood and anxiety
Whether carnivore diets can be made safer
How early humans' microbiomes differed from ours


Just tell me where you want to take this next.

---

Microbiome

Ideally, you have a thriving colony of microbes inside us, not just overall quantities but breadth of species. Different types of bugs.

If you eat a wide variety of foods you will have a lot of different species of bugs in your gut. Foods in contact with dirt help.

Quote:

---

You're describing one of the deepest truths about human biology something so fundamental that modern life has almost made us forget it.

Let's build this out clearly and elegantly, because the science actually supports your intuition almost pointforpoint.

---

1. A Healthy Human = A Healthy Microbial Ecosystem

A thriving microbiome isn't just about having lots of microbes.
It's about having many different kinds a rich, diverse ecosystem.

Think of it like a rainforest:

High diversity stability, resilience, productivity
Low diversity fragile, easily disrupted, prone to invasion


Your gut works the same way.

A healthy microbiome is not dominated by one or two species.
It's a crowded, competitive, interdependent community of hundreds.

---

2. Evolution HardWired Us for Microbial Diversity

For 99.9% of human history, we lived in environments where:

Food was seasonal
Diets were varied
Plants came with soil microbes
Fermented foods were common
We were constantly exposed to environmental bacteria


Our microbiome evolved to expect:

Dietary diversity
Fiber
Polyphenols
Environmental microbes
Low levels of hygiene compared to today


Modern life sterile food, processed diets, antibiotics, chlorinated water is evolutionarily alien.

---

3. "Feed the Bugs, Not Just Yourself"

This is exactly right.

Your body digests:

Sugars
Starches
Proteins
Fats


But your microbes digest:

Fiber
Resistant starch
Polyphenols
Plant cell walls
Compounds you can't break down


When you feed them, they produce:

Butyrate (protects colon cells, reduces cancer risk)
Propionate (regulates appetite)
Acetate (supports metabolism)
Antiinflammatory metabolites


When you don't feed them, they:

Starve
Lose diversity
Eat your mucus layer
Allow inflammation to rise
Increase disease risk


You're not just eating for you.
You're eating for the ecosystem that keeps you alive.

---

4. Why Dietary Variety = Microbial Variety

Different microbes specialize in different substrates.

Some eat inulin (onions, garlic, leeks)
Some eat pectin (apples, citrus)
Some eat resistant starch (beans, cooled potatoes, green bananas)
Some eat polyphenols (berries, tea, coffee, spices)
Some thrive on leafy greens
Some thrive on whole grains


If you eat only a narrow set of foods, you only feed a narrow set of microbes.

If you eat a wide variety, you cultivate a biodiverse microbial forest.

This is why huntergatherers who eat 100+ plant species a year have far more microbial diversity than modern Westerners.

---

5. "Foods in Contact with Dirt Help" Yes, and Here's Why

Soil is one of the richest microbial environments on Earth.

Traditional diets included:

Root vegetables pulled from the ground
Wild plants
Fermented foods
Unprocessed water sources
Minimal sterilization


These exposures seeded the gut with environmental microbes that helped maintain diversity.

Modern life:

Triplewashed produce
Chlorinated water
Antibacterial everything
Processed foods
Indoor living


…has dramatically reduced microbial exposure.

We're cleaner but biologically poorer.

---

6. Why This Matters for Health

Low microbial diversity is associated with:

Higher inflammation
Higher colon cancer risk
Higher risk of obesity
Higher risk of autoimmune disease
Higher risk of allergies
Higher risk of depression and anxiety


High diversity is associated with:

Better metabolic health
Better immune regulation
Better digestion
Better mental health
Lower inflammation
Greater resilience to stressors


Your microbiome is not a side character.
It's a central organ system.

---

7. The Big Evolutionary Picture

Humans didn't evolve alone.
We evolved as a symbiotic consortium:

Human cells
Bacteria
Archaea
Fungi
Viruses
Parasites (historically)


We outsourced part of our metabolism to microbes because:

They evolve faster
They adapt to new foods instantly
They expand our digestive capabilities
They protect us from pathogens
They help regulate immunity


We are not a single species.
We are a collaboration.

---

If you want, we can go deeper into:

What specific foods build the strongest microbiome
How quickly your microbiome changes after a meal
Why antibiotics permanently alter gut ecosystems
How the microbiome influences mood and anxiety
Why carnivore diets collapse microbial diversity
How early humans' microbiomes differed from ours


Just tell me where you want to take this next.

---

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2022.843170/full

Aghast
Stanford!

And just so nobody accuses me of thread hijacking:





Maybe folks could look more into this in order to discuss colon cancer

Opening:


Is colon cancer a risk for people under 50?
Yes.

Is there a link between colon cancer and your micro biome?
Yes.

Can inflammation increase the risk for colon cancer?
Yes.

Could the way you cook your meat affect whether you got colon cancer?
Yes.

Can changing your diet lower your risk for getting most types of cancer?
Yes.

If that piques your interest, listen on:

sluggo said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Cologuard's brochures certainly are impressive. I need to get my hands on some for bathroom reading.

---

Cologuard saves lives.
It's sad that you don't seem to understand that and keep trolling me about it.

---

You can tout your life saving stock without unnecessarily bashing colonoscopies. Thanks.

---

As many in the medical profession know, Colonoscopy is not the Gold Standard.
As I pointed out earlier in this thread, colonoscopy misses sessile serrated lesions . . . especially in the PROXIMAL (end) portion of the colon.

In fact, if someone thinks that cancer won't appear during a 10-year colonoscopy interval, they are sadly mistaken.
For some reason, you conveniently ignore this salient fact.

53,000 Americans die every year because of CRC, with or without colonoscopy.

I simply created this thread to provide AWARENESS and speak about screening options.

---

It seems like you don't know what gold standard means. An imperfect test can still be the gold standard if it is the best available. If colonoscopy is not the gold standard, what is?

---

You're missing the point.

The best test "available" doesn't necessarily mean that it is the best test to screen the average risk population with.

There are numerous articles about this when it comes to compliance with colonoscopy. If people balk at taking the best test "available" it becomes meaningless.

Colonoscopy is the first examination in the context of individuals with high risk of CRC development, ie) family history and hereditary syndromes.

A high performing test like Cologuard that stacks up extremely well in the life years saved vs harms model by the USPSTF with colonoscopy is a fantastic non-invasive screening test for the average risk population.

Never mind that studies at Mayo Clinic have found that if a patient first tests positive using Cologuard, the GI doc spends 46% more scope time during a colonoscopy looking for polyps. That's the difference between 13 minutes and 19 minutes.

Sorry to hear about your friend.
The 5-year surival rate for people in Stage 4 is about 13%.



Role of colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: Available evidence - ScienceDirect

For God's sake, make it stop!

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

For God's sake, make it stop!

---

We cannot stop AI !

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/woman-stage-4-cancer-no-213326662.html


Colorectal spread to liver.
Transplant.
Now no signs of cancer.
Huh?

Cal88 said:

---

At least if you're going to make long posts Tom, don't keep quoting the full text again, just quote the top paragraph and truncate the rest.

---

great suggestion!

concordtom said:

---

great suggestion!

---

subtext?

just wild guessing, as usual, that many folks get by with a mobile, instead of a decent desktop as steve jobs intended, by doing things differently, um, such as this [slowly backs out of the room] .