I had my last colonoscopy at age 62. One before that at 55. Both had no polyps. The doctor wanted to schedule me for another one. I've had a bowel resection and have 22 stomach ulcers. Recent test showed no H Pyloric. I'm not getting another one, ever. My bowel problem was from blood clots. Thankfully I never took the COVID "vaccine" and I'll never take any vaccines again. I haven't even had a flu/pneumonia shot in 40+ years. Recently I've been diagnosed with Parkinson's disease from the toxic water at Camp Lejeune when I was there. I no longer trust the mainstream medical industry.
My gut is my friend…I have NEVER & never will killed it hoping the new tenants will be better. So many friends tell me they don't feel right after their first colonoscopy. You can kill your gut with antibiotics for much cheaper if that's your goal,.
Why are doctors always trying to shove things in up and down your holes? Unless they can give me a very specific and explicit reason, I refuse virtually all invasive and routine tests other than bloodwork and only if it's covered by my insurance provided I have any at any given time.
Colonoscopies as *screening* tests are the reason more young people are diagnosed with colon cancer. Instead of the classic diagnosis in an older person with symptoms where the cancer on average has spread to stage 3.
I independently researched this topic on my own. Your article(s) are more in-depth and I don’t claim to have more detailed information. For those interested, please visit my tiny Substack and read the colon article.
Nevertheless, I’ve found at least one likely error, or at least a claim that’s quite different from what my research said:
“While colon cancer is found in only about 40 out of 10,000 screening colonoscopies...”
Way low. It’s more like 20 per 1,000 (2%) for the typical screened population (ages 45-75 approximately). That figure comes from what appears to be a U.S. government sponsored article from a respected medical journal.
Perhaps it’s mentioned in a later article, but polyps are pretty darned common: more than half of all people have them after middle age.
Despite “my” figures showing greater incidence which logically would seem to ague for the value of colo-rectal cancer screening, I’ve decided against further screening colonoscopies. To save you the time of reading my own article, here’s the bottom line: In my age bracket (60s) a colon screening statistically would detect a cancer in 1% of cases during a ten year interval. That might even seem valuable until one considers the downsides. Perhaps even the colon prep and out-of-pocket costs are acceptable to some. But what put me off are the risks of complications. I didn’t find hard figures, but close as I can tell, the risk of serious adverse incidents is a substantial fraction of 1% and rises well above that figure with older (>75) patients. For me, it was at least a yellow, if not red, flag that CRC screening is NOT recommended for the elderly (>75) due to risk of harms, yet it's highly recommended for the younger cohorts.
A related question that “my” article touches upon is that some authorities call into questions the value of any cancer screening in general. The basic argument is that, while screening does unquestionably detect cancers, it doesn’t do so at zero cost. Perversely, these “costs” to the patient are not only in time and money, but also potential emotional and physical harm, such as in the case of a false negative. If you read more widely on the issue (e.g. Kendrick) you'll discover that screening necessarily runs risks. Some screening requires invasive procedures (e.g. the colonoscopy) that run the risk of perforated colon, bleeding, serious infection or even worse. Breast cancer screening and suck requre a large amount of x-raying, which provides a different type of risk.
Furthermore, “early” detection is something of an illusion due to how “survival” or “cure” of cancers is reckoned. A final fly in the ointment is that screening has rarely if ever been proven to be of net benefit, because [almost?] no randomized, controlled trials were ever done. Once a screening program comes into wide use, it becomes impossible to do so, even if one wished to, because there’s no longer a suitable control group.
A cynic might start to think that cancer screening, like a long list of medical goods and services, is so heavily promoted because it’s profitable to the medical-industrial complex, rather than providing clear benefits to the patient.
It’s a major revenue source. And I’ve known of a number of real life horror stories. As well as my own experiences. I’m never doing it again. My choice!
19 years ago I had my one and only colonoscopy. The result: No polyps/cancer and a perforated colon. I now have a long scar down my stomach where they cut me open to repair the perforation. Many days in hospital. Then go home not feeling right. Back to hospital with an abscess. Another week in the hospital. You can keep your colonoscopy.
I could tell you at least a hundred stories of patients I've taken care of with metastatic colon cancer who never had a colonoscopy at the recommended age
I don't remember where I read it but, the article claimed that statistics showed that the number of lives saved through colonoscopy was about the same as the number killed from perforation, infection, hemorrhage, etc due to the procedure. It also alleged that most of the rest of the medical world thinks we are nuts for our colonoscopy addiction.
Not true at all... countries healthier than the US use screening colonoscopies too. Japan even does screening upper endoscopies because they experience more stomach cancer.
I am 61 and was coerced into having one this year (2025). I had my first one in 2014. After is was done, I received my insurance EOB and found that I had to cover 80% of the cost because they had removed a polyp in 2014 and it was no longer a preventative procedure but a diagnostic procedure. I will never have another one!
Ten years ago, my boss at the time went in for a standard colonoscopy in his 60s.......He ended up with sepsis from the procedure and had to stay in hospital to heal for a few days.....He almost died.
A friend of mine has ulcerative colitis so doctor said he has to have a coloscopy on regular basis for rest of his life. $$$$$$$$$$.......This friend told me that one time during the procedure the anesthesia wore off and he felt pain. He told the doctor who then said we're almost done, just hang on, and proceeded to keep working on my friend who was in pain........That's outrageous.
Never had one. Never going to. I’m 55, and when God wants to take me out, nothing will stop Him.
I had my last colonoscopy at age 62. One before that at 55. Both had no polyps. The doctor wanted to schedule me for another one. I've had a bowel resection and have 22 stomach ulcers. Recent test showed no H Pyloric. I'm not getting another one, ever. My bowel problem was from blood clots. Thankfully I never took the COVID "vaccine" and I'll never take any vaccines again. I haven't even had a flu/pneumonia shot in 40+ years. Recently I've been diagnosed with Parkinson's disease from the toxic water at Camp Lejeune when I was there. I no longer trust the mainstream medical industry.
It’s torture for profit. Before, during and after.
My gut is my friend…I have NEVER & never will killed it hoping the new tenants will be better. So many friends tell me they don't feel right after their first colonoscopy. You can kill your gut with antibiotics for much cheaper if that's your goal,.
Colonoscopies are actually the ongoing search for Jimmy Hoffa.
I knew it. Instinctively.
Why are doctors always trying to shove things in up and down your holes? Unless they can give me a very specific and explicit reason, I refuse virtually all invasive and routine tests other than bloodwork and only if it's covered by my insurance provided I have any at any given time.
Screening colonoscopies should be covered 100% by your insurance company...thanks Obama.
Colonoscopies as *screening* tests are the reason more young people are diagnosed with colon cancer. Instead of the classic diagnosis in an older person with symptoms where the cancer on average has spread to stage 3.
Thanks so much
I independently researched this topic on my own. Your article(s) are more in-depth and I don’t claim to have more detailed information. For those interested, please visit my tiny Substack and read the colon article.
Nevertheless, I’ve found at least one likely error, or at least a claim that’s quite different from what my research said:
“While colon cancer is found in only about 40 out of 10,000 screening colonoscopies...”
Way low. It’s more like 20 per 1,000 (2%) for the typical screened population (ages 45-75 approximately). That figure comes from what appears to be a U.S. government sponsored article from a respected medical journal.
Perhaps it’s mentioned in a later article, but polyps are pretty darned common: more than half of all people have them after middle age.
Despite “my” figures showing greater incidence which logically would seem to ague for the value of colo-rectal cancer screening, I’ve decided against further screening colonoscopies. To save you the time of reading my own article, here’s the bottom line: In my age bracket (60s) a colon screening statistically would detect a cancer in 1% of cases during a ten year interval. That might even seem valuable until one considers the downsides. Perhaps even the colon prep and out-of-pocket costs are acceptable to some. But what put me off are the risks of complications. I didn’t find hard figures, but close as I can tell, the risk of serious adverse incidents is a substantial fraction of 1% and rises well above that figure with older (>75) patients. For me, it was at least a yellow, if not red, flag that CRC screening is NOT recommended for the elderly (>75) due to risk of harms, yet it's highly recommended for the younger cohorts.
A related question that “my” article touches upon is that some authorities call into questions the value of any cancer screening in general. The basic argument is that, while screening does unquestionably detect cancers, it doesn’t do so at zero cost. Perversely, these “costs” to the patient are not only in time and money, but also potential emotional and physical harm, such as in the case of a false negative. If you read more widely on the issue (e.g. Kendrick) you'll discover that screening necessarily runs risks. Some screening requires invasive procedures (e.g. the colonoscopy) that run the risk of perforated colon, bleeding, serious infection or even worse. Breast cancer screening and suck requre a large amount of x-raying, which provides a different type of risk.
Furthermore, “early” detection is something of an illusion due to how “survival” or “cure” of cancers is reckoned. A final fly in the ointment is that screening has rarely if ever been proven to be of net benefit, because [almost?] no randomized, controlled trials were ever done. Once a screening program comes into wide use, it becomes impossible to do so, even if one wished to, because there’s no longer a suitable control group.
A cynic might start to think that cancer screening, like a long list of medical goods and services, is so heavily promoted because it’s profitable to the medical-industrial complex, rather than providing clear benefits to the patient.
It’s a major revenue source. And I’ve known of a number of real life horror stories. As well as my own experiences. I’m never doing it again. My choice!
19 years ago I had my one and only colonoscopy. The result: No polyps/cancer and a perforated colon. I now have a long scar down my stomach where they cut me open to repair the perforation. Many days in hospital. Then go home not feeling right. Back to hospital with an abscess. Another week in the hospital. You can keep your colonoscopy.
That's terrible, I'm sorry that happened to you. Thankfully, it's an incredibly rare occurrence.
I’ve heard a number of these stories. Perhaps not as ‘incredible rare’ as you think.
I could tell you at least a hundred stories of patients I've taken care of with metastatic colon cancer who never had a colonoscopy at the recommended age
I don’t care. You sound as if you make a good living from selling colonoscopies. Enjoy.
Nope I make zero money from any of my recommendations. 98% of my income is salary, but that doesn't fit your imaginary narrative.
Data is always better than stories
Yeah, because we can always trust the data thrown at us. 🤣
Thats awful! But kind of you to share......just in case anybody had any second thoughts!!!
I don't remember where I read it but, the article claimed that statistics showed that the number of lives saved through colonoscopy was about the same as the number killed from perforation, infection, hemorrhage, etc due to the procedure. It also alleged that most of the rest of the medical world thinks we are nuts for our colonoscopy addiction.
Not true at all... countries healthier than the US use screening colonoscopies too. Japan even does screening upper endoscopies because they experience more stomach cancer.
I am 61 and was coerced into having one this year (2025). I had my first one in 2014. After is was done, I received my insurance EOB and found that I had to cover 80% of the cost because they had removed a polyp in 2014 and it was no longer a preventative procedure but a diagnostic procedure. I will never have another one!
Ten years ago, my boss at the time went in for a standard colonoscopy in his 60s.......He ended up with sepsis from the procedure and had to stay in hospital to heal for a few days.....He almost died.
A friend of mine has ulcerative colitis so doctor said he has to have a coloscopy on regular basis for rest of his life. $$$$$$$$$$.......This friend told me that one time during the procedure the anesthesia wore off and he felt pain. He told the doctor who then said we're almost done, just hang on, and proceeded to keep working on my friend who was in pain........That's outrageous.