Gastroentorology Colonoscopy is It Worth the Risk - Part One

8/10/2019 Gastroentorology Colonoscopy is It Worth the Risk - Part One

1/30

COLONOSCOPY: IS IT WORTH THE RISK?byKonstantin Monastyrsky

Below is a verbatim transcript (and additional embedded commentaries) of my investigative

report in four parts. You may find them handy if you are troubled by my accent, or speed ofdelivery, or too many facts, or small video size, or poor connection to the Internet, or your

office restrictions on watching videos, or what have you.

PART I.THEANATOMY OFADEADLY DECEPTION

Greetings!

My name is Konstantin Monastyrsky. I am a medical writer [bio], performance nutrition

consultant, and an expert in forensic nutrition [about]. This new field of life science

investigates connections between supposedly healthy foods and undeniably lethal diseases.

Colorectal cancer is one of such diseases. It is the most dominant and the deadliest nutrition-

related cancer close to one hundred sixty thousand new cases diagnosed annually in the

United States alone. [1]

So our desire to prevent it isn't surprising, especially when we are told that regular

colonoscopies after age fifty make colorectal cancer " more than 90% curable but only if you

get tested in time." [2]

Actual ly, this is a lie! Screening colonoscopies do not prevent or materially reduce anyone's

risk of colorectal cancer regardless of age. And if anything, they may actually increase your

overall risk of cancer, and not just colorectal.

Here are the true facts:

First, according to the American Cancer Society, up till now There are no prospective

randomized controlled trials of screening colonoscopy for the reduction in incidence or

mortality of colorectal cancer . [3]
http://www.gutsense.org/author/author.htmlhttp://www.gutsense.org/author/author.htmlhttp://www.gutsense.org/author/author.htmlhttp://www.gutsense.org/author/author.htmlhttp://www.gutsense.org/author/author.htmlhttp://www.gutsense.org/author/author.htmlhttp://www.gutsense.org/author/forensic.htmlhttp://www.gutsense.org/author/forensic.htmlhttp://www.gutsense.org/author/forensic.htmlhttp://www.gutsense.org/author/forensic.htmlhttp://www.gutsense.org/author/author.htmlhttp://www.gutsense.org/author/author.html


2/30

The National Cancer Institute is even more explicit:it is not yet known for certain whether

colonoscopy can help reduce the number of deaths from colorectal cancer. [4]

This means that the 90% cure rate figure cited by Ms. Couric back in 2000 is pure fiction. It

also means that most of the fourteen million plus screening colonoscopies [5] performed

annually in the United States to the tune of twenty to thirty billion dollars aren't recommended


3/30

on the basis of rock-solid research or clinical indications, but on the willful misinformation of

the American public, consumer fraud in other words

Second, according to the analysis of actual outcomes, screening colonoscopies are essentially

useless: 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 . [6]

Third, colonoscopies aren't as safe and simple as you may think or are led to believe:

Colonoscopy can result in significant harms, most often associated with polypectomy, and

the most common serious complication is post-polypectomy bleeding, and Another

significant risk associated with colonoscopy is perforation, of the colon, that is... [3]


4/30

And that is even before taking into account your stress, anxiety, false posi tives, frequently

missed polyps and tumors [7], and all of the usual recovery-related complications, such as

infections, constipation, diarrhea, hemorrhoids, diverticulitis, and others.

But all these risks pale in comparison with 'computed tomography,' known as virtual

colonoscopies. Incredulously, instead of preventing your risk of cancer, they actually increase it

by exposing you to five to ten mill isieverts of x- ray radiation required for just one abdominal

scan.

According to the United States Food and Drug Administration.. . "This range is not much less

than the lowest doses of five to twenty millisieverts received by some of the Japanese

survivors of the atomic bombs ." [8]


5/30

Goodness gracious... Radiation levels from a single virtual colonoscopy are similar to the

atomic bomb exposure in Hiroshima, even though, according to The National Cancer Institute:

Whether virtual colonoscopy can reduce the number of deaths from colorectal cancer is not

yet known. [4]


6/30

But the really frightening part comes next: " This increase in the possibility of a fatal cancer

from radiat ion can be compared to the natura l incidence of fatal cancer in the U.S.

population, about 1 chance in 5." [8]


7/30

In other words, a single, virtual colonoscopy turns an otherwise absolutely healthy person with

a lifetime risk of colon cancer under 5% into a cancer-prone sitting duck with a 20% risk of

contracting any type of cancer.

Author's commentary: Please note that my statement above is incorrect. According

to the FDA document I cited, the risk of fatal cancer from a single CT -related radiation

exposure isn't 1 in 5 but 1 in 2000. Neither myself, nor my editors, nor the numerous

readers of this material have noticed this error until December 5th, 2013, when I

received a note from a concerned reader who has noted my error. Here is what the

actual text had said:

"A CT examination with an effective dose of 10 millisieverts (abbreviated mSv; 1 mSv =

1 mGy in the case of x rays.) may be associated with an increase in the possibility of

fatal cancer of approximately 1 chance in 2000. Thi s increase in the possibility of a

fatal cancer from radiat ion can be compared to the natural incidence of fatal cancer in

the U.S. population, about 1 chance in 5. In other words, for any one person the risk of

radiation-induced cancer is much smaller than the natural risk of cancer. " [link]

This is a classical case of "confirmation bias," and I regret misinforming readers by

making this unfortunate error. That said, I still think that anyone exposing

himself/herself to CT scans in the situations that aren't life-threatening, is making a

grave mistake, especially when this "anyone" is a child. The lifetime increase of cancer

risk related to radiation isn't linear, but, as a note below explains, "cumulative and

exponential." It is even more so in the era of near-constant exposure to cell towers,

police and aviation radars, Wi-Fi routers, and the Fukushima- and Chernobul-like

environmental disasters.

Furthermore, I don't have any proof to the contrary (and nobody does for sure), but I

believe that the claim that the equivalent to getting exposed to 500 re gular chest x -rays

carries only 1 in 2000 risk of cancer is not true. Feel free to call me a conspiracy nut,

but if that risk would be, ind eed, that low, people who work in radiology centers

wouldn't have to hid e themselves behind lead -reinforced walls and wear radiation dose

monitors while at work.

Considering these odds, you are actually two hundred times safer living next -door to a Russian-

built nuclear power plant your ent ire li fe than having just one single CT scan. [9]
http://web.archive.org/web/20090331110922/http:/www.fda.gov/cdrh/ct/risks.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20090331110922/http:/www.fda.gov/cdrh/ct/risks.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20090331110922/http:/www.fda.gov/cdrh/ct/risks.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20090331110922/http:/www.fda.gov/cdrh/ct/risks.html


8/30

And since virtual colonoscopies are now recommended every five years, your cumulative

exposure to radiation by the time you r each your seventieth birthday will be simi lar to

witnessing not one, not two, not three, not even four, but five nuclear blasts, and your risk of

developing any kind of cancer will be five out of f ive, or exactly 100%

Author's commentary: The statistical representation of repetitive risk isnt a s imple

linear sum of the totals, but a regressive calculation. In other words, five identical

events that increase the risk of an adverse outcome by 20% each, will increase the total

risk of adverse outcome to 67%, not 100%, as I rhetorically suggested above.

This regressive analysis ofmere risk, however, doesnt apply literally to x -ray radiation

exposure from periodic CT scans alone. In this case, the rate of cancer risk increase is

cumulative and exponential, because each successive irradiation of aging body carries a

far greater risk than the previous one five years before.

In other words, the true risk of any cancer from five successive virtual colonoscopies

between the ages of 50 and 70 is far greater than 100%. How greater God only knows,

and I dont recommend anyone to attempt find this out the hard way!

Not surprisingly, the actual incidence of colorectal cancers in the United States has grown by

30,000 more cases annually, a whopping 22% increase in just eight short years. (The incidence

of colorectal cancers in the United States has increased from an estimated 129,400 new cases

in 1999 [10] to 158,410 in year 2007 [11, page 4].)

Author's commentary: Someone sent me a rather nasty comment suggesting that

this increase in the incidence of colorectal cancer demonstrates the success of

colonoscopies in detecting and treating early cancers. It very well maybe true. There

are, however, four serious problems with this argument:

First off, the patients are urged to undergo screening colonoscopies to PREVENT

colon cancer occurrence with 90% certainty, not to DETECT early colon cancer. For

that, you can take a safe, simple, and more economical blood test as often as you like,

and without incurring any risk of either getting killed or injured by colonoscopy, or

missing a cancer in progress. And I recommend that much in part II for anyone with

propensity for hypochondria.


9/30

Second, early detection of asymptomatic colorectal cancer may actually shorten

patient's life, because it automatically triggers inevitable biopsy, surgery, and

chemotherapy. Otherwise it takes about 10 years for most colorectal tumors to become

symptomatic (i.e. large enough to cause problems that requires surgical intervention).

Third, if you get operated on for a two year-old asymptomatic tumor, your chances of

premature death are far greater than if you get operated on for a ten year old tumor

eight years later. And you get to live about the same age -adjusted lifespan after the

treatment. Thus, doing nothing buys you at least an extra eight years of normal life and

care-free bliss!

Fourth, there is greater than 95% chance that you will succumb to any other terminal

disease or old age before colorectal cancer has a chance to kill you, while any attempt to

eliminate that 5% risk of colorectal cancer with screening colonoscopies increases your

cumulative risk of death far greater than 5%. To learn why, please watch parts III and

IV.

So ask yourself this simple question: would you rather take a 5% chance of dying from a

large colorectal tumor eight years from now; or undergo surgery and chemo today, wear

a colectomy bag for the next eight years, and most likely die anyway before eight years

are up from some other cancer, stroke, or heart attack caused by post-treatment

complications?

In terms of cancer, this sharp upsurge is considered an epidemic of catastrophic proportions.

So why, then, do doctors recommend colonoscopies if they are unproven, ineffective, risky, and

unreliable?

A rotating pile of money, Money, money... jingle in the background from the musical

Cabaret.

That is the answer to that question!

Doctors profit motives aside, Katie Couric isn't exactly a benevolent Samaritan either. She

began urging Americans to get screened for colon cancer while she was [being] employed by

General Electric, the owner of NBC television.


10/30

GE happens to manufacture and sell CT scanners used for virtual colonoscopies. Since each of

these room-sized contraptions [link]costs upward of three-and-a-half million dollars, what is a

better way to kee p them 'minting money ' than an indirect end orsement by a big TV star.

Lo and behold, her handlers ruthlessly exploited her husband's unfortunate death from colon

cancer to promote colonoscopies. Because Ms. Couric never disclosed her connection to GE

Healthcare - a seventeen billion dollar subsidiary of GE and a sister company of NBC [ link]

unsuspecting Americans embraced her story, and the number of screenings jumped from under

one million before her famous televised colonoscopy in year 2000 to around fourteen million

today.

Adding to this hypocrisy, Jay Monahan - Ms. Couric's late husband - passed away at age forty

two, eight years before a first screening is even recommended. This, unfortunately, means that

neither him nor anyone else in his predicament would have likely been saved

Based on all the above evidence, I pleaded with Mr. Couric first by mail [ link], second on her

blog [link], and finally on my site, to stop endorsing or recommending colon cancer screening

to 95% of Americans, who are in a low -risk group. Regretfully, she ignored my pleas and never

responded.

One change I noticed After Ms. Couric left NBC for greener pastures at CBS, she no longer

refers to the 90% cure rate [link]. Now, it is just a measly 5% reduction of "colon cancer death."

Katie Couric: Colon cancer is the second leading cancer killer. But if it is detected

early, it has better than 90% cure rate. (from 2000, [link])

And seven years later

Katie Couric:"Colon cancer death are down almost 5% among men, and 4.5 among

women." (from 2007,[link])

Sadly, even this small reduction isn't likely related to screenings, and I discuss its probable

reasons [link]on this video's transcript page.

After this report had already been taped, the Annals of Internal Medicine a preeminentpublication of the American College of Physicians released a new research paper concerning

the considerable failure of screening colonoscopies to detect and prevent colorectal cancer,

particularly in the right colon.

The editorial commentary by Dr. David Ransohoff, the Professor of Medicine at the University

of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, states the following [12]:
http://www3.gehealthcare.com/en/Products/Categories/Computed_Tomography/Discovery_CT750_HDhttp://www3.gehealthcare.com/en/Products/Categories/Computed_Tomography/Discovery_CT750_HDhttp://www3.gehealthcare.com/en/Products/Categories/Computed_Tomography/Discovery_CT750_HDhttp://web.archive.org/web/20080808113141/http:/www.gehealthcare.com/usen/ct/products/advantage_ctc.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20080808113141/http:/www.gehealthcare.com/usen/ct/products/advantage_ctc.htmlhttp://www.gutsense.org/crc/crc_couric.htmlhttp://www.gutsense.org/crc/crc_couric.htmlhttp://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/06/13/couricandco/entry4180656.shtml#ccmmhttp://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/06/13/couricandco/entry4180656.shtml#ccmmhttp://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/06/13/couricandco/entry4180656.shtml#ccmmhttp://www.monahancenter.org/screen/video_couric.htmlhttp://www.monahancenter.org/screen/video_couric.htmlhttp://www.monahancenter.org/screen/video_couric.htmlhttp://www.monahancenter.org/screen/video_couric.htmlhttp://www.monahancenter.org/screen/video_couric.htmlhttp://www.monahancenter.org/screen/video_couric.htmlhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpDu4UC3vwghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpDu4UC3vwghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpDu4UC3vwghttp://www.gutsense.org/crc/crc_faq.html#5_percent_trendhttp://www.gutsense.org/crc/crc_faq.html#5_percent_trendhttp://www.gutsense.org/crc/crc_faq.html#5_percent_trendhttp://www.gutsense.org/crc/crc_faq.html#5_percent_trendhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpDu4UC3vwghttp://www.monahancenter.org/screen/video_couric.htmlhttp://www.monahancenter.org/screen/video_couric.htmlhttp://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/06/13/couricandco/entry4180656.shtml#ccmmhttp://www.gutsense.org/crc/crc_couric.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20080808113141/http:/www.gehealthcare.com/usen/ct/products/advantage_ctc.htmlhttp://www3.gehealthcare.com/en/Products/Categories/Computed_Tomography/Discovery_CT750_HD


11/30

A goal of avoiding all deaths from colon cancer may be admirable, but we do not have

evidence that we can achieve it.

Although colonoscopy is generally safe, it is still an invasive procedure with a 0.2%

rate of serious complications 10 times higher than for any other commonly used,

cancer-screening test. Repeated examinations over time may incur a substantial

cumulative rate of complications, not even counting hard-to-detect complications (if

they occur), such as silent myocardial infarction [heart attack KM].

Colonoscopy is an effective intervention, but, as Baxter and colleagues suggest, we

must realize that current evidence is indirect and does not support a claim of 90%

effectiveness.

So, who, then, should get screened for colon cancer, if anyone?

Youll find the answer to this question in the second part of this investigative report.

Author's commentary: After watching/reading the above section, you may ask

yourself this completely sensible question:

How can a scornful Ms. Couric claim a 90% reduction of colon cancer risk while an

indignant Mr. Monastyrsky claims no reduction, only an increase?

Oh, that's easy Just like a horse race, any clinical study can be easily fixed to deliverthe desired outcome either by falsifying the trial design, or by manipulating outcome

statistics, or both. That's how this 90% figure came about, and until this day I can't

locate the original sourcing for this figure.

From this point on, these scams are managed using well-learned and well-practiced

formula:

By using cherry-picked references from prestigious medical journals. The articles in

many of these journals aren't generally available to the general public, so it's easy to

obscure undesirable outcomes and conclusions;

By donating money to not -for-profit associations, whose sole function is to promote

their donors.The National Colorectal Cancer Research Alliance was co-founded by

Katie Couric specifically for this purpose to funnel blood money to promote

screening colonoscopies.
http://web.archive.org/web/20090924130326/http:/www.eifoundation.org/national/nccra/vision/message_from_katie.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20090924130326/http:/www.eifoundation.org/national/nccra/vision/message_from_katie.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20090924130326/http:/www.eifoundation.org/national/nccra/vision/message_from_katie.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20090924130326/http:/www.eifoundation.org/national/nccra/vision/message_from_katie.html


12/30

By hiring so-called expert spokespersons who will endorse and champion anyone

will ing to pay up, and so on.

And this obfuscation was particularly easy to accomplish in cases of screening

colonoscopies, because, unlike drugs, medical equipment, or lab tests, the diagnostic

protocols do not, I repeat, do not require anyone's approval or oversight.

As far as my indignation goes, once you too real ize that screening colonoscopy can't

reduce anyone's risk of colon cancer for the same fundamental reasons you can't

crossbreed a cat with a dog, you'll no longer question it.

PART II.TURNINGAPROBABLE DEATH SENTENCE INTO

AMANAGEABLE RISK

Welcome back!

Lets begin by addressing the last question from Part I: Who should get screened for colorectal

cancer, if anyone at all?

Well , for starters , lets keep the mortal ity rate from colorectal cancer in perspec tive. Even a

person in a high-risk group is 12 times as likely to die from heart disease; 10 times from any

other cancer, 6 times from a medical error [13], 3 times from stroke, and twice as likely to

die from an accident [14]


13/30

Considering these stats, the paranoia whipped up by Ms. Couric and her paymasters wasn't,

obviously, about saving your life, but about making a buck.

You have also learned by now that regular screenings 5 or 10 years apart are more or less

useless, and, adding insult to injury, that virtual colonoscopies may cause all kinds of other

cancers.

But even if you ignore all these facts, and decide to get screened as often as every year,

consider the outcome ofthe Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study [15]. It included 46

thousand patients between the ages of 50 and 80 and lasted for a whopping 18 years.


14/30

But in the end, it demonstrated only 0.62% reduction in the incidence of colorectal cancer.

Statistically speaking, a difference this tiny was purely a chance happening.

Another prominent trial, known as the Telemark Polyp Study I[16], have been equally

discouraging. The absolute difference in the incidence of colorectal cancer between screened

patients and controls was only 2%, while the mortally rate from all causes in the screened


15/30

group was 157% higher than among those who hadn't been screened (In the video I mistakenly

indicate 57% instead of 157% KM) .

Here is what it all means:

First, If you are in a low-risk group, regular screenings will very likely increase your chances

of death or disease from all other causes;

Second, If you are in a high-risk group, even annual screenings aren't materially helpful.

And third, if screenings are indeed useless, then a strategy of life-long prevention is the only

via ble way to escape colorectal cancer, especially for high -risk individuals.

These three conclusions bring up three equally crucial questions:

First, how do you determine if you or your loved ones are at risk?

Second, is it actually possible to prevent colorectal cancer?

And, thirdif it is, indeed, possible to prevent it, what should you do?

So lets address the first question first:

Are you or your loved ones in the high -risk gr oup for colorectal cancer ?


16/30

I know the answer to this question better than most because I myself have a genetic

predisposition to colorectal cancer through my Ashkenazi Jewish heredity and a long history of

colorectal disorders. Also, my wife's dad had colo n cancer, and this places Tatyana in the high

risk group too. And both of us are well past fifty.

Considering this backdrop, we are just as scared as anyone would be in our shoes. So, if you are

a confirmed hypochondriac, you may definitely pursue safe and non-invasive stool tests for

colon cancer markers as often as you like.

Stool Tests For Colon Cancer Markers:

Guaiac [pronouncedgwahy-ak]fecal occult blood test (gFOBT);

Stool DNA test (sDNA);

Fecal immunochemical test (FIT)]

If these tests prove positive or there are any unexplained symptoms, you should definitelyundergo conventional colonoscopy.

And now, lets address the next question:

Is it possible to prevent colorectal cancer?

Absolutely ! The majority of colorectal cancers aren't here ditary, and the majority of people in

the high-risk group never develop one either. This means that colorectal cancer is connected to

lifestyle factors just like lung cancer is connected to one's smoking. Eliminate these risk

factors, and you'll reduce your chances of getting hit with colorectal cancer for the samereasons not smoking reduces the risk of lung cancer. This ain't rocket science, that's for sure

Just like with any other cancer, this is not a foolproof enterprise, but for anyone in the high

risk group, a strategy of life-long prevention turns a probable death sentence into a

manageable risk, and for anyone in the low risk group it just about eliminates the possibility.

Finally, lets address the last question:

What should you do to eliminate as many risks of colorectal cancer as humanly possible?

There are several external, and, therefore, well-controllable risk factors. They are, respectively:

wrong diet , malnutrition, poor bowel habits; side effects of drugs; poor immunity; common

colorectal disorders, such as IBS, inflammatory bowel disease; damaged intestinal flora, and

some others. To a large extent, all of them are interdependent. This means fixing one positively

affects the rest, while neglecting one makes all others more damaging.


17/30

To sort out and eliminate all of these risks, please visit my web site GutSense.org. In addition

to colon cancer prevention, it also addresses chronic constipation, diarrhea, irritable bowel

syndrome, diverticular disease, and related complications. These wid espread disorders

commonly precede polyposisthe formations of polyps that may eventually turn into deadly

tumors.

Obviously, to prevent polyposis, you must eliminate these conditions first. Otherwise, you can

zap polyps all you want, but as long as their causes are still there, new ones will pop-up long

before your next screening. That, essentially, explains why colonoscopies are so ineffective.

The most tragic aspect of this sad story is also the deadliest The promoters of this fraud

continue to intimidate unsuspecting Americans and their well-meaning doctors into the false

belief that 'screening colonoscopies' are the o nly via ble way of preventing colorectal cancer:

Voice of Katie Couric from March, 2007 video [YouTube link]:

A colon is it's own container. If you can remove the polyp, even before it's cancerous,

then you literally nip the disease in the bud.

Voice of Konstantin Monastyrsky:

For goodness sake, Ms. Couric , please stop lying! The truth is (the following four slides

displayed while Mr. Monastyrsky reads highlighted sections) :

From the National Cancer Institute web site [4]:

it is not yet known for certain whether colonoscopy can help reduce the number of

deaths from colorectal cancer.

From 'A Cancer Journal for Clinicians' [3]:

There are no prospective randomized controlled trials of screening colonoscopy for

the reduction in incidence or mortality of CRC [colorectal cancer - KM].

From The New York Times [6]:

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 gener al population without screening.

From the Annals of Internal Medicine [12]:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOByopVamiQ&eurl=http://www.videosurf.com/video/conquering-colon-cancer-50394374https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOByopVamiQ&eurl=http://www.videosurf.com/video/conquering-colon-cancer-50394374https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOByopVamiQ&eurl=http://www.videosurf.com/video/conquering-colon-cancer-50394374https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOByopVamiQ&eurl=http://www.videosurf.com/video/conquering-colon-cancer-50394374https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOByopVamiQ&eurl=http://www.videosurf.com/video/conquering-colon-cancer-50394374


18/30

A goal of avoiding all deaths from colon cancer may be admirable, but we do not have

evidence that we can achieve it.

Colonoscopy is an effective intervention, but, as Baxter and colleagues suggest, we

must realize that current evidence is indirect and does not support a claim of 90%

effectiveness.

As a result , most people over fi fty do nothing to material ly prevent it, except praying for the

best , and waiting in fear for yet another useless screening that may harm them even more.

I hope this isnt you!

Thank you for watching!

I wish you and your family good luck and good health!

PART III.WHY SCREENING COLONOSCOPY INCREASES

THE RISK OF COLORECTAL CANCER

The whole premise of using screening colonoscopy to prevent colon cancer is built around the

idea of polypectomy - a medical term for locating and removing precancerous polyps inside the

colon, just like explained in this advertorial by doctor Couric:

Voice of Katie Couric from March, 2007 video [link]:

If you can remove the polyp, even before it's cancerous, then you literally nip the

disease in the bud.

But that is not what the polypectomy actually delivers:

First, an estimated 95% of all polyps are benign, they will never become cancers, so removing

them makes just as much sense as zapping the moles off your buttocks to prevent

melanoma

Second, not all colorectal cancers are preceded by detectable polyps. It is believed an even

larger share of colon cancers start from flat lesions that no one is suggesting to remove, even

though they are considered five time as cancerous as large polyps....

Third, removing polyps or even doing biopsies releases cancer cells into the blood stream and

the colon's lumen. In turn, these cells may seed all other cancers throughout the body. This
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOByopVamiQ&eurl=http://www.videosurf.com/video/conquering-colon-cancer-50394374https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOByopVamiQ&eurl=http://www.videosurf.com/video/conquering-colon-cancer-50394374https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOByopVamiQ&eurl=http://www.videosurf.com/video/conquering-colon-cancer-50394374https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOByopVamiQ&eurl=http://www.videosurf.com/video/conquering-colon-cancer-50394374


19/30

phenomenon, of course, is well known to cancer specialists. How do you think researchers

infect experimental animals with cancers they simply collect cancer cells from a donor and

inject them into any desired site. In essence, taking out a precancerous polyps may be riskier

than leaving it alone.

Fourth, it is a well established fact that new polyps spring like weeds following polypectomy,

and probably for the same reason I just mentioned the release of cancer cells into the body.

Unfortunately, as the number of polyps goes up, so do the odds of one of them eventually

turning into a cancerous tumor.

Fifth, even the most thorough endoscopists may miss up to 30% of detectable polyps, and the

less rigorous routinely miss up to 60%, including actual cancer tumors. All of them,

regardless of skill or attention, miss 100% of all polyps in the right colon. Come to think of it,

missing polyps may not be such a bad thing, considering just how risky their removal may be.

Sixth, the average age for colorectal cancer diagnosis is 72 years [close to the average lifespan

for American men, and just a few years short of the average lifespan for American women

KM.] So commencing invasive screening and polypectomies in asymptomatic people at age 50

is just as absurd as taking contraceptives after menopause;

Finally, seventh, i f you have poor blood coagulation, or take regular aspirin as most people

past 50 do, or are on a blood thinner such as warfarin [generic name for brands known as

Coumadin, Jantoven, Marevan, andWaraned.], polypectomy profoundly increases your

risk of death from hard to detect internal bleeding which may lead to ischemic stroke,

myocardial ischemia, cardiac arrest, or sudden cardiac death.

So, do the simple math to realize just how pointless and dangerous this whole charade is:

almost all polyps are benign; removing them is riskier than leaving them alone; more than half

of all polyps are undetectable; most cancers don't start from polyps but lesions; you are likely

to die from old age before colon cancer strikes you; and your risk of dying from a colono scopy-

related complications may exceed your risk of ever getting colon cancer in the first place.

Or, how about this undeniable fact for proof: If screening colonoscopies and resulting

polypectomies were, indeed, effective, with about half of Americans past age fifty getting

screened, we should have enjoyed at least a 50% reduction in the incidence and mortality of

colon cancer. But, instead, we have a 22% increase in incidence, while the number of deaths

remains practically the same. If that is not a proof, what, then, is?


20/30

Author's commentary : True, in a best case scenario, screening colonoscopy may

catch a colorectal cancer already in progress. But even this chance is actually slim

because a 5 to 10 years interval between screenings turns this enterprise into a veritable

Russian roulette. And even when a small, early tumor is caught in time, a mandatory

biopsy releases cancer cells int o the body, setting you up for metastases all over, forunavoidable chemotherapy, and for all other cancers...

In no way am I denying or obscuring the tragic aspects of colon cancer. It is a costly,

devastating, and deadly disease. All I am saying is this: Look at the facts - screening

colonoscopies make colon cancer even more costly, even more devastating, and even

more deadly!

And they do absolutely nothing to prevent colon cancer. To the contrary by creating a

false sense of security, screenings make most people even more reckless and even more

exposed to all other cancers. Indeed, why bother with prevention, when you believe that

a single doctor's visit every five or ten years will nip the disease in the bud! with 90%

certainty

Finally, everyone keeps asking me the same question over and over again:

But how come, Mr. Monastyrsky, does all this information come from you, and not from the

doctors?

Let me quote 'The New York Times' for you:


21/30

And this is particularly true for cancer, because there is no business more prof ita ble than the

cancer business between diagnosis and death, an average well-insured patient is worth

$200,000 to $300,000 to doctors, hospitals, diagnostic labs, and big Pha rma. The average

healthy patient is worth exactly nothing.

Thank you for watching!

Please click the orange Subscribe button in the upper right hand corner [this applies to videos

watched on YouTube], so you don't miss the next episode. Information like t his may actually

save your life!

PART IV.WHY SCREENING COLONOSCOPY INCREASES

MORTALITY?

Greetings,

It is an open secret that screening colonoscopies increase mortality.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/business/01unbox.html?scp=1&sq=hospitals%20profit%20from%20full%20beds%20and%20doctors%20profit%20from%20repeat%20visits.%20There%20is%20no%20financial%20incentive%20to%20keep%20patients%20healthy&st=cse


22/30

As far back as in 1996, the Telemark Polyp Study 1 demonstrated that two-and-a-half times as

many screened patients had died from all other causes than had been presumably saved from

colon cancer by the colonoscopy in the first place.

Authors commentary : Its worth noting that the Telemarks colonoscopies were

performed by the book at a major metropolitan hospital by experienced GI surgeons,

and without any profit considerations or time constraints. Alas, the average endoscopist

at a local colonoscopy mill compares to these surgeons just like the presidential

physician at the White House compares to a part -time doctor at a neighborhood walk-in

clinic, and so do the outcomes.

In no way I wish to disparage the hard work of any doctor at any clinic regardless of its

income potential or location. The difference lies in the amount of time and attention

allotted to each individual patient, while the President is the one and only patient. This

factor alone reduces inadvertent medical errors by a mile.

Just like with any abdominal surgery, there a re four primary factors that contribute to

colonoscopy-related complications. These are the side effects of colon prep, the aftermath of

general anesthesia, endoscopy-related surgical w ounds, and medical errors.

Lets review them one-by-one, with emphasis on risk and mortality:

Ill start with the side-effects of colon preparation. Normally, the large intestine is filled with

fecal matter throughout its entire length. To have an unobstructed view, all feces must be

purged clean with a laxative, a procedure known as colon prep or lavage. Severe

dehydration, kidney damage, and bowel movement disruption are the most common side

effects of this step.

With the number of screening colonoscopies growing, the proble m became significant enough

to get the Federal Drug Administration into the action:


23/30

FDA has become aware of reports of acute phosphate nephropathy, a type of acute kidney

injury, associated with the use of oral sodium phosphate products (OSP) for bowel cleansing

prior to colonoscopy or other pro cedures.

Over 85,000 people die annually from kidney failure [ link]that is almost 50% more than

from colorectal cancer. I believe many of these deaths have been precipitated by a careless and

damaging colon prep.

Authors commentary:Kidney damage is an especially high hazard for tens of

millions of older Americans with diabetes and prediabetes who may already have

weakened kidneys. If you are taking the most common hypertension and heart disease

medicines, you too are at increased risk.

According to the article entitled "Acute phosphate nephropathy following oral so dium

phosphate bowel purgative: an under-recognized cause of chronic renal failure." (J Am

Soc Nephrol 16:3389-3396, 2005), the acute phosphate nephropathy thats a term for

kidney damage by an osmotic laxative used for prep may occur in up to 1 in 1000

patients who receive oral sodium phosphate products.

This means that the annual rate of kidney damage related to screening colonoscopy is at

least 14,000 cases. Because kidney damage is difficult to detect quickly, the actual rate
http://kidney.niddk.nih.gov/kudiseases/pubs/kustats/index.htmhttp://kidney.niddk.nih.gov/kudiseases/pubs/kustats/index.htmhttp://web.archive.org/web/20090511200657/http:/www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/OSP_solution/default.htmhttp://kidney.niddk.nih.gov/kudiseases/pubs/kustats/index.htm


24/30

may be higher. I came across more recent articles that indicated the damage rate as

high as 1%, or 140,000 cases.

The prep-related dehydration may result in dizziness, syncope, ischemic stroke, blood clotting,

sudden cardiac death, a fall or an accident, medication overdose, and other complications. The

death rate related to these side effects is not known.

Bowel movement disruption following colonoscopy commonly leads to chronic constipation,

severe diarrhea, diverticulitis, and bowel obstruction. All of these conditions constitute a

primary cause of inflammatory bowel disease (Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis ed.),

that alone increases the risk of colon cancer by 32 times!

Thats right 3,200%.

Now, lets review the most common side-effects of general anesthesia.

Authors commentary : If you have ever experienced even mild flatulence, you must

know what the pain from gas pressure feels like. To keep the colon wide-open, doctors

pump compressed air into the colon at several times the pressure of gases. For this and

other reasons colonoscopy without anesthesia is an extremely painful procedure.

Unfortunately, all types of general anesthesia are extremely risky because it affects blood

circulation, heart and lung function, and turns off immunity. Just the confirmed rate of severe
http://digestive.niddk.nih.gov/ddiseases/pubs/colitis/


25/30

cardiovascular risk from general anesthesia for low-risk surgical procedures, such as

colonoscopy, ranges from 0.27% to 1.1% within the first six days after the surgery.

Authors commentary : According to the same source, Severe cardiac complications

included cardiac death, cardiac arrest, myocardial infarction, ventricular tachycar dia,

and fibrillation and pulmonary edema.

Thats why an anesthesiologist or nurse anesthesiologist must be present for the entire length

of the colonoscopy in order to administer the anesthetic and monitor your vital signs.

Deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism is another common side effect related to

general anesthesia, even a brief one. Pulmonary embolism causes or contributes to up to

200,000 deaths annually in the United States [link].

Authors commentary : Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is, essentially, blood clotting

due to immobility and the slowdown of blood circulation, caused by the anesthetic. The

risk of clotting increases with the anesthesias duration. That is why a thorough

colonoscopy lasting an hour or more is much riskier than the assembly-line hack jobs

that usually take under 10 minutes. It may take weeks for a clot to dislodge and travel

up to the lungs, so its hard to connect this outcome to the colonoscopy.
http://www.sirweb.org/patients/deep-vein-thrombosis/http://www.sirweb.org/patients/deep-vein-thrombosis/http://www.sirweb.org/patients/deep-vein-thrombosis/http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1495256http://www.sirweb.org/patients/deep-vein-thrombosis/


26/30

An estimated 25% of all people develop chest inf ections after general anesthesia, and many

older people die weeks or months later from acute pneumonia. Mortality rate from pneumonia

is 5%, and about 60,000 people die annually slightly more than from colorectal cancer.

Finally, lets account for surgical wounds and medical errors.

Accidental colon perforat ion with endoscope, injuries from air insuff lation and/or endoscope,

and bleeding from polyp removal with a wire loop are the primary immediate complications of

the colonoscopy procedure itself.

According to the Complications of Colonoscopy in an Integrated Health Care Delivery System

report, the rate of complications from conventional diagnostic colonoscopy, such as colon

perforation, bleeding, and diverticulitis, reported at 5 in 1,000, or 0.5%. [ link]

Authors commentary : The above study authors indicated that much of the

information on complications has come from studies or referral centers and might not

reflect what actually happens in the general community. This is coded lan guage for

actually, it may be much higher, but we dont know just how much higher

According to numerous published reports, only [up to ed.] 20% of al l medical errors are ever

reported. With this in mind, the actual rate of screening colonoscopy complications may be as

high as 20 in 1000, or 2%.
http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/abstract/145/12/880http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/abstract/145/12/880http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/abstract/145/12/880http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/abstract/145/12/880http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/abstract/145/12/880http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/abstract/145/12/880


27/30


28/30

References

Click the [link] to view the source site or document in the new window (when available). The

references for this essay were compiled in D ecember 2008 February 2009. Some of the links

may not match at a later date because publishers may revise their web sites. In this case, try

searching cached pages on Google, or contact the respective publishers.

1. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures 2007. Atlanta: American Cancer Society;

2007. [link]

2. The National Colorectal Cancer Research Alliance, Don't end up saying "if only." Get tested."

[link]

3. Levin, B., at al.; Screening and Surveillance for the Early Detection of Colorectal Cancer and

Adeno matous Polyps, 2008: A Joint Guideline from the America n Cancer Society, the US

Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology CA

Cancer J Clin 2008 58: 130-160 [link]

4. Colorectal Cancer Screening; National Cancer Institute; Oct 2008; [ link]

5. Seeff LC, et al.; How many endoscopies are performed for colorectal cancer screening?

Results from CDC's survey of endoscopic capacity. Gastroenterology. 2004;127: 1670 -1677.

[link]

6. Study Questions Colonoscopy Effectiveness; The New York Times; G. Colata; Dec 14, 2006;

[link]

7. Barclay, R., at al.; Colonoscopic Withdrawal Times and Adenoma Detection during Screening

Colonoscopy N Engl J Med 2006 355: 2533-2541

8. What are the Radiation Risks From CT?; U.S. Food and Drug Administration; Center For

Devices and Radiological Health; August 6th,2008; [link]

9. Jerry M. Cuttler; What Becomes of Nuclear Risk Assessment in Light of Radiation Hormesis?

Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the Canadian Nuclear Society, Toronto, June

6-9, 2004 [link,Word document]

10. Rudy, D, et al.; Update on Colorectal Cancer; American Family Physician; March 15, 2000;

[link]

11. Cancer Facts & Figures, 2007; Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2007, page 4 [link]
http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/CAFF2007PWSecured.pdfhttp://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/CAFF2007PWSecured.pdfhttp://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/CAFF2007PWSecured.pdfhttp://www.eifoundation.org/national/nccra/pdfs/psa_katie.pdfhttp://www.eifoundation.org/national/nccra/pdfs/psa_katie.pdfhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.3322/CA.2007.0018http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.3322/CA.2007.0018http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Detection/colorectal-screeninghttp://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Detection/colorectal-screeninghttp://www.gastrojournal.org/article/PIIS0016508504019328/fulltexthttp://www.gastrojournal.org/article/PIIS0016508504019328/fulltexthttp://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/14/health/14colon.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/14/health/14colon.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20090331110922/http:/www.fda.gov/cdrh/ct/risks.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20090331110922/http:/www.fda.gov/cdrh/ct/risks.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20090331110922/http:/www.fda.gov/cdrh/ct/risks.htmlhttp://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/risk-cuttler_04.dochttp://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/risk-cuttler_04.dochttp://www.aafp.org/afp/20000315/1759.htmlhttp://www.aafp.org/afp/20000315/1759.htmlhttp://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/CAFF2007PWsecured.pdfhttp://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/CAFF2007PWsecured.pdfhttp://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/CAFF2007PWsecured.pdfhttp://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/CAFF2007PWsecured.pdfhttp://www.aafp.org/afp/20000315/1759.htmlhttp://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/risk-cuttler_04.dochttp://web.archive.org/web/20090331110922/http:/www.fda.gov/cdrh/ct/risks.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/14/health/14colon.htmlhttp://www.gastrojournal.org/article/PIIS0016508504019328/fulltexthttp://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Detection/colorectal-screeninghttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.3322/CA.2007.0018http://www.eifoundation.org/national/nccra/pdfs/psa_katie.pdfhttp://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/CAFF2007PWSecured.pdf


29/30

12. Ransohoff, D.; How Much Does Colonoscopy Reduce Colon Cancer Mortality? Ann Intern

Med 2008; 60520-308. [link]

13. D. W. Bates; et al.; Incidence of adverse drug events and potential adverse drug events.

Implications for prevention. ADE Prevention Study Group JAMA. 1995;274(1):29-34. [link]

14. FASTSTATS A to Z; National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease and

Prevention; [link]

15. Mandel, J, at al.; The Effect of Fecal Occult-Blood Screening on the Incidence of Colorectal

Cancer; N Engl J Med 2000 343: 1603-1607 [ link]

16. Thiis-Evensen E, et al.; Population-based surveillance by colonoscopy: effect on the

incidence of colorectal cancer. Telemark Polyp Study I.; Scand J Gastroenterol. 1999

Apr;34(4):414-20. [link]

The following references apply to the sources mentioned on the Home page and throughout this

section:

Complications of Colonoscopy in an Integrated Health Care Delivery System; T. R. Levin, W.

Zhao, C. Conell, L. C. Seeff, D. L. Manninen, J. A. Shapiro and J. Schulman; Ann Intern Med

2006; 880-886. [link]

Virtual Colonoscopy Misses Nearl One Third of Lesions; The proceeds of the 68th annualscientific meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology; Oct 15, 2003; [ link]

Association of Colonoscopy and Death From Colorectal Cancer; N. N. Baxter, M. A.

Goldwasser, L. F. Paszat, R. Saskin, D. R. Urbach and L. Rabeneck; Ann Intern Med 2009; 1 -

8; [link]

Screening and Surveillance for the Early Detection of Colorectal Cancer and Adenomatous

Polyps, 2008: A Joint Guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society

Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology; Levin, Bernard, at

al; CA Cancer J Clin 2008 58: 130-160; [link]

The Effect of Fecal Occult-Blood Screening on the Incidence of Colorectal Cancer; Mandel,

Jack S., Church, Timothy R., Bond, John H., Ederer, Fred, Geisser, Mindy S., Mongin, Steven

J., Snover, Dale C., Schuman, Leonard M.; N Engl J Med 2000 343: 1603 -1607; [link]
http://web.archive.org/web/20090220150924/http:/www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/0000605-200901060-00308v1http://web.archive.org/web/20090220150924/http:/www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/0000605-200901060-00308v1http://web.archive.org/web/20090220150924/http:/www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/0000605-200901060-00308v1http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/274/1/29http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/274/1/29http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/274/1/29http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/FASTATS/lcod.htmhttp://www.cdc.gov/nchs/FASTATS/lcod.htmhttp://www.cdc.gov/nchs/FASTATS/lcod.htmhttps://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/343/22/1603https://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/343/22/1603http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10365903http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10365903http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/abstract/145/12/880http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/abstract/145/12/880http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/463058http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/463058http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/abstract/150/1/1?ijkey=8966b500840c0258383ea8a59c7a8e552eec1a2c&keytype2=tf_ipsecshahttp://www.annals.org/cgi/content/abstract/150/1/1?ijkey=8966b500840c0258383ea8a59c7a8e552eec1a2c&keytype2=tf_ipsecshahttp://www.annals.org/cgi/content/abstract/150/1/1?ijkey=8966b500840c0258383ea8a59c7a8e552eec1a2c&keytype2=tf_ipsecshahttp://web.archive.org/web/20101205231510/http:/caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/content/full/58/3/130http://web.archive.org/web/20101205231510/http:/caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/content/full/58/3/130http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/343/22/1603?ijkey=8b8bf9fe4aa2d043334ec7bd571132adbe1edbe0&keytype2=tf_ipsecshahttp://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/343/22/1603?ijkey=8b8bf9fe4aa2d043334ec7bd571132adbe1edbe0&keytype2=tf_ipsecshahttp://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/343/22/1603?ijkey=8b8bf9fe4aa2d043334ec7bd571132adbe1edbe0&keytype2=tf_ipsecshahttp://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/343/22/1603?ijkey=8b8bf9fe4aa2d043334ec7bd571132adbe1edbe0&keytype2=tf_ipsecshahttp://web.archive.org/web/20101205231510/http:/caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/content/full/58/3/130http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/abstract/150/1/1?ijkey=8966b500840c0258383ea8a59c7a8e552eec1a2c&keytype2=tf_ipsecshahttp://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/463058http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/abstract/145/12/880http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10365903https://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/343/22/1603http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/FASTATS/lcod.htmhttp://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/274/1/29http://web.archive.org/web/20090220150924/http:/www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/0000605-200901060-00308v1


30/30

Documents

Gastroentorology Colonoscopy is It Worth the Risk - Part One