Hi there, Love that you used Hydrogen peroxide, Liquid Silver, and Ivermectin. Those are all things that work, but there is so much push back and wariness about those items. Thankyou for giving me confidence to use them more...Rgds, S
Wise of you to treat yourself at home! BTW, cobalt glass itself causes derma issues. If it was LEAD crystal, that's bad, too.
In a way, covid has done everyone a favor because they now understand hospitals are a dangerous source of infection. This has been true for a long, long time. In 2000, Johns Hopkins and JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) showed deaths in hospitals due to the hospitals and doctors themselves were the 3rd leading cause of death in the US. However, studies showed that if you included people who later died at home due to hospitals and doctors, it was the 1st leading cause of death. No one bothered to read these papers. By the time JAMA warns you of something, it's already gone bad for many decades.
I was serving on a Johns Hopkins committee at the time. When I need a blood draw for a test that I can't do myself (e.g. requires centrifuge, etc), I drive to an independent lab that is a stand alone building away from medical facilities, to reduce the chance of acquiring one of the many resistant pathogenic infections. There was another researcher who found that all the colonoscopy scopes get recontaminated after (questionable) sterilization. Get the blood tests instead.
I do not believe that about colonoscopy tools and colonoscopies save lives. our medical manager years ago at 42 died of colorectal cancer it is a silent killer. thanks for comments. dlb
You can easily search colonoscopy+infection+ lawsuit to see that it is a dangerous procedure. Highly-advertised medical procedures are usually like stents, they are more dangerous and less effective than one might hope.
The Johns Hopkins scope research was published. I'll see if I can dig it up for you. I remember that there were two scope sterilization methods, one isn't great and the other is ineffective.
For your clients, there are two blood tests for colon cancer that measure different markers, so I advise taking both. Colonoscopies are only good at detecting certain cancers. You can also request a sealed disposable scope, too.
So very sorry to hear about your colleague's untimely passing. I did not pay attention to the issue of sterilization of colonoscopy scopes until two of my older friends suffered both perforations and infections from a routine colonoscopy, after which they were in and out of the hospital for several years until the end.
There are lawsuits against everything we are a litiginous society. my family grows polyps and these are life saving. All of medicine is risk versus benefit and you get to choose. hopefully you never get esophageal or colorectal cancer. wishing u the best. Online means zip. dlb
This lack of interest in in-depth research does not sound like you.
I know you have not forgotten the role lawsuits played in exposing DES dangers...
or the dangers of generations of statin drugs, psych meds, or Roundup.
Reviewing pharma lawsuits is an important part of research, especially for those of you who cannot subscribe to many professional journals. The free section of pubmed, for example, is full of pharma-sponsored works (not that JAMA is not), so you need to spread your research net as wide as possible.
Sorry you seem to need to write with a nasty vibe. Wow. don't subscribe then. Myself, i get my colonoscopies and am grateful medicare pays for them. everything is risk vs. benefit. If you grow sessil polyps you don't want to walk around with them waiting to "turn". Published in The New England Journal of Medicine, the study was a randomized controlled trial of 84,585 people between the ages of 55 and 64 in Norway, Poland, and Sweden who had not previously undergone screening. Participants either received an invitation to have a screening colonoscopy or did not receive an invitation. The researchers followed participants for 10 to 15 years to compare the number of colorectal cancers and deaths from CRC in each group.
Only 42% of people invited to have colonoscopy accepted the invitation. Data from everyone invited, regardless of whether they actually underwent colonoscopy, is known as an "intention-to-screen" analysis. As many news reports correctly noted, the intention-to-screen analysis showed an 18% reduction in later colorectal cancers and no significant reduction in deaths. Importantly, though, when only people who actually had colonoscopy were analyzed (known as a "per-protocol" analysis), colonoscopy reduced the number of colorectal cancers by 31% and of CRC-associated deaths by 50%.
Why are these findings so different?
In this study, a relatively low percentage (42%) of persons who were invited to undergo colonoscopy actually had the procedure, compared with a rate of 60% of adults in the US, where colonoscopy is broadly recommended. This low rate of participation is the major reason why the intention-to-screen analysis showed lower rates of detection and death than the per-protocol analysis. After all, you cannot find something if you do not look for it. The take-home message of this study is that when people have screening colonoscopies, deaths from colorectal cancer are reduced by half. That’s a huge reduction! And while the rate of CRC deaths is often the bottom line in studies, it’s important to consider hardships associated with a diagnosis of cancer — financial costs, physical costs of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation — as well as the suffering caused by the disease itself. This study teaches us that colonoscopies work quite well when performed, and that we still have work to do to make colonoscopy more accessible so that more people benefit from screening.About the Authors
photo of Trisha Pasricha, MD, MPH
Trisha Pasricha, MD, MPH, Contributor
Trisha Pasricha, MD, MPH, is a gastroenterologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, and an instructor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. She is a recipient of a Research Scholar Award from the American Gastroenterological Association for her … See Full Bio
View all posts by Trisha Pasricha, MD, MPH
photo of Lawrence S. Friedman, MD
Lawrence S. Friedman, MD,
Contributor; Editorial Advisory Board Member, Harvard Health Publishing
Dr. Lawrence Friedman is the Anton R. Fried, MD, Chair of the department of medicine at Newton-Wellesley Hospital, assistant chief of medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and … See Full Bio
. 2016 Aug;111(8):1092-101. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2016.234. Epub 2016 Jun 14.
Post-Colonoscopy Complications: A Systematic Review, Time Trends, and Meta-Analysis of Population-Based Studies
Ankie Reumkens 1 2 3, Eveline J A Rondagh 1, C Minke Bakker 3, Bjorn Winkens 4 5, Ad A M Masclee 1 2, Silvia Sanduleanu 1 6
Affiliations expand
PMID: 27296945 DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2016.234
Abstract
Objectives: Many studies around the world addressed the post-colonoscopy complications, but their pooled prevalence and time trends are unknown. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based studies to examine the pooled prevalence of post-colonoscopy complications ("perforation", "bleeding", and "mortality"), stratified by colonoscopy indication. Temporal variability in the complication rate was assessed.
Methods: We queried Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane library for population-based studies examining post-colonoscopy complications (within 30 days), performed from 2001 to 2015 and published by 1 December 2015. We determined pooled prevalence of perforations, post-colonoscopy bleeding, post-polypectomy bleeding, and mortality.
Results: We retrieved 1,074 studies, of which 21 met the inclusion criteria. Overall, pooled prevalences for perforation, post-colonoscopy bleeding, and mortality were 0.5/1,000 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.4-0.7), 2.6/1,000 (95% CI 1.7-3.7), and 2.9/100,000 (95% CI 1.1-5.5) colonoscopies. Colonoscopy with polypectomy was associated with a perforation rate of 0.8/1,000 (95% CI 0.6-1.0) and a post-polypectomy bleeding rate of 9.8/1,000 (95% CI 7.7-12.1). Complication rate was lower for screening/surveillance than for diagnostic examinations. Time-trend analysis showed that post-colonoscopy bleeding declined from 6.4 to 1.0/1,000 colonoscopies, whereas the perforation and mortality rates remained stable from 2001 to 2015. Overall, considerable heterogeneity was observed in most of the analyses.
Conclusions: Worldwide, the post-colonoscopy complication rate remained stable or even declined over the past 15 years. The findings of this meta-analysis encourage continued efforts to achieve and maintain safety targets in colonoscopy practice.
Hi there, Love that you used Hydrogen peroxide, Liquid Silver, and Ivermectin. Those are all things that work, but there is so much push back and wariness about those items. Thankyou for giving me confidence to use them more...Rgds, S
Wise of you to treat yourself at home! BTW, cobalt glass itself causes derma issues. If it was LEAD crystal, that's bad, too.
In a way, covid has done everyone a favor because they now understand hospitals are a dangerous source of infection. This has been true for a long, long time. In 2000, Johns Hopkins and JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) showed deaths in hospitals due to the hospitals and doctors themselves were the 3rd leading cause of death in the US. However, studies showed that if you included people who later died at home due to hospitals and doctors, it was the 1st leading cause of death. No one bothered to read these papers. By the time JAMA warns you of something, it's already gone bad for many decades.
I was serving on a Johns Hopkins committee at the time. When I need a blood draw for a test that I can't do myself (e.g. requires centrifuge, etc), I drive to an independent lab that is a stand alone building away from medical facilities, to reduce the chance of acquiring one of the many resistant pathogenic infections. There was another researcher who found that all the colonoscopy scopes get recontaminated after (questionable) sterilization. Get the blood tests instead.
I do not believe that about colonoscopy tools and colonoscopies save lives. our medical manager years ago at 42 died of colorectal cancer it is a silent killer. thanks for comments. dlb
So sad when we fear the institutions that we used to rely on for healing. Way to be brave and thanks for sharing the first aid tips!
You can easily search colonoscopy+infection+ lawsuit to see that it is a dangerous procedure. Highly-advertised medical procedures are usually like stents, they are more dangerous and less effective than one might hope.
The Johns Hopkins scope research was published. I'll see if I can dig it up for you. I remember that there were two scope sterilization methods, one isn't great and the other is ineffective.
For your clients, there are two blood tests for colon cancer that measure different markers, so I advise taking both. Colonoscopies are only good at detecting certain cancers. You can also request a sealed disposable scope, too.
So very sorry to hear about your colleague's untimely passing. I did not pay attention to the issue of sterilization of colonoscopy scopes until two of my older friends suffered both perforations and infections from a routine colonoscopy, after which they were in and out of the hospital for several years until the end.
There are lawsuits against everything we are a litiginous society. my family grows polyps and these are life saving. All of medicine is risk versus benefit and you get to choose. hopefully you never get esophageal or colorectal cancer. wishing u the best. Online means zip. dlb
This lack of interest in in-depth research does not sound like you.
I know you have not forgotten the role lawsuits played in exposing DES dangers...
or the dangers of generations of statin drugs, psych meds, or Roundup.
Reviewing pharma lawsuits is an important part of research, especially for those of you who cannot subscribe to many professional journals. The free section of pubmed, for example, is full of pharma-sponsored works (not that JAMA is not), so you need to spread your research net as wide as possible.
Sorry you seem to need to write with a nasty vibe. Wow. don't subscribe then. Myself, i get my colonoscopies and am grateful medicare pays for them. everything is risk vs. benefit. If you grow sessil polyps you don't want to walk around with them waiting to "turn". Published in The New England Journal of Medicine, the study was a randomized controlled trial of 84,585 people between the ages of 55 and 64 in Norway, Poland, and Sweden who had not previously undergone screening. Participants either received an invitation to have a screening colonoscopy or did not receive an invitation. The researchers followed participants for 10 to 15 years to compare the number of colorectal cancers and deaths from CRC in each group.
Only 42% of people invited to have colonoscopy accepted the invitation. Data from everyone invited, regardless of whether they actually underwent colonoscopy, is known as an "intention-to-screen" analysis. As many news reports correctly noted, the intention-to-screen analysis showed an 18% reduction in later colorectal cancers and no significant reduction in deaths. Importantly, though, when only people who actually had colonoscopy were analyzed (known as a "per-protocol" analysis), colonoscopy reduced the number of colorectal cancers by 31% and of CRC-associated deaths by 50%.
Why are these findings so different?
In this study, a relatively low percentage (42%) of persons who were invited to undergo colonoscopy actually had the procedure, compared with a rate of 60% of adults in the US, where colonoscopy is broadly recommended. This low rate of participation is the major reason why the intention-to-screen analysis showed lower rates of detection and death than the per-protocol analysis. After all, you cannot find something if you do not look for it. The take-home message of this study is that when people have screening colonoscopies, deaths from colorectal cancer are reduced by half. That’s a huge reduction! And while the rate of CRC deaths is often the bottom line in studies, it’s important to consider hardships associated with a diagnosis of cancer — financial costs, physical costs of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation — as well as the suffering caused by the disease itself. This study teaches us that colonoscopies work quite well when performed, and that we still have work to do to make colonoscopy more accessible so that more people benefit from screening.About the Authors
photo of Trisha Pasricha, MD, MPH
Trisha Pasricha, MD, MPH, Contributor
Trisha Pasricha, MD, MPH, is a gastroenterologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, and an instructor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. She is a recipient of a Research Scholar Award from the American Gastroenterological Association for her … See Full Bio
View all posts by Trisha Pasricha, MD, MPH
photo of Lawrence S. Friedman, MD
Lawrence S. Friedman, MD,
Contributor; Editorial Advisory Board Member, Harvard Health Publishing
Dr. Lawrence Friedman is the Anton R. Fried, MD, Chair of the department of medicine at Newton-Wellesley Hospital, assistant chief of medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and … See Full Bio
View all posts by Lawrence S. Friedman, MD
Am J Gastroenterol
. 2016 Aug;111(8):1092-101. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2016.234. Epub 2016 Jun 14.
Post-Colonoscopy Complications: A Systematic Review, Time Trends, and Meta-Analysis of Population-Based Studies
Ankie Reumkens 1 2 3, Eveline J A Rondagh 1, C Minke Bakker 3, Bjorn Winkens 4 5, Ad A M Masclee 1 2, Silvia Sanduleanu 1 6
Affiliations expand
PMID: 27296945 DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2016.234
Abstract
Objectives: Many studies around the world addressed the post-colonoscopy complications, but their pooled prevalence and time trends are unknown. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based studies to examine the pooled prevalence of post-colonoscopy complications ("perforation", "bleeding", and "mortality"), stratified by colonoscopy indication. Temporal variability in the complication rate was assessed.
Methods: We queried Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane library for population-based studies examining post-colonoscopy complications (within 30 days), performed from 2001 to 2015 and published by 1 December 2015. We determined pooled prevalence of perforations, post-colonoscopy bleeding, post-polypectomy bleeding, and mortality.
Results: We retrieved 1,074 studies, of which 21 met the inclusion criteria. Overall, pooled prevalences for perforation, post-colonoscopy bleeding, and mortality were 0.5/1,000 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.4-0.7), 2.6/1,000 (95% CI 1.7-3.7), and 2.9/100,000 (95% CI 1.1-5.5) colonoscopies. Colonoscopy with polypectomy was associated with a perforation rate of 0.8/1,000 (95% CI 0.6-1.0) and a post-polypectomy bleeding rate of 9.8/1,000 (95% CI 7.7-12.1). Complication rate was lower for screening/surveillance than for diagnostic examinations. Time-trend analysis showed that post-colonoscopy bleeding declined from 6.4 to 1.0/1,000 colonoscopies, whereas the perforation and mortality rates remained stable from 2001 to 2015. Overall, considerable heterogeneity was observed in most of the analyses.
Conclusions: Worldwide, the post-colonoscopy complication rate remained stable or even declined over the past 15 years. The findings of this meta-analysis encourage continued efforts to achieve and maintain safety targets in colonoscopy practice.
Where does one find Ivermectin to keep on hand?
get a script and you can purchase through compounding pharmacies. dlb