PRACTICING MEDICINE

Say cheese!

Last week, I was obliged to miss two days of work due to the quinquennial Mediaeval torture known as the colonoscopy. Not that the procedure itself is so bad -- that is, they knock you unconscious to make sure you don't realize that having a camera snaking up your rectum would be considered torture by any definition of the word. It's the prep work that should be outlawed by The Hague (or any Hague).

You'd think by the first quarter of the 21st-century that the medical world could have come up with something better than skipping food for a day so you can drink at least 64 ounces of water mixed with a thick liquid smelling and tasting like a cheap knock-off of a Frebreze plug-in "air freshener", just so your intestines can explode for seven hours like you've been slipped some TNT.

Well, they have, kind of. You can just give a stool sample, which then goes through some rigamarole that accomplishes the same thing. But that is said to have an accuracy rate of 75%, while the Polaroid through the chute elevates it to 98%. That 23% difference is worth it, so they say.

This guy thought he was doing the right
thing, too.

Actually, make that "so they said up until this week."  According to a study in the New England Journal of Medicine, colonoscopy screening exams that are recommended for older US adults failed to reduce the risk of death from colon cancer in a 10-year study that questions the benefits of the common procedure. While people who underwent the exam were 18% less likely to develop colon cancer, the overall death rate among screened and unscreened people were the same at about 0.3%, said researchers from Poland, Norway and Sweden.

I cut and pasted that exactly as published on Bloomberg News so I wouldn't be accused of cherry-picking (or polyp-picking) data. It's up to the individual to decide if an 18% success rate is worth having your bowels exploding for an afternoon every five years. More importantly, it seems to be another one of those Hey-looks-like-we-were-wrong statements that confuses people like me who are striving to follow doctors' orders to the best of their ability.

Colonoscopies aren't the only thing getting a rethinking. Scientists at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation just finished a large study concerning the health outcome of risks factors. You'll be relieved the learn that smoking indeed is as dangerous as you thought.

And the chimichurri sauce makes it that much
better for you!

But you know what isn't? Red meat! Unlike what vegetarians and vegans have been screaming at us forever, there is no link between, say, hanger steaks and stroke, while the chance of getting cancer, heart disease or diabetes falls into the "meh" category. Now that's worth the risk. Too bad beef is so expensive these days.

Pour beer into this three times.
Sound fun to you?

There's a reason why lots of people ignore medical studies: Oh, they'll just backtrack in a few years. I've lived long enough to see the health benefits of eggs go from good to bad and back to good. Same thing with coffee, red wine, chocolate, and who knows what else. I recently read a study (which, alas, I can't find right now) that stated people under the age of 30 shouldn't consume more than three tablespoons of alcohol a day. Sure, tell that to your average college student.

The researcher also said, in so many words, that nobody should drink any amount of alcohol, period. I bet that guy is a lot of laughs at parties.

I drink one glass of wine or beer four to seven times a week. Occasionally I'll have a couple of frozen margaritas to jazz up my tacos. According to my most recent physical, my liver and kidney functioning were in tip-top condition.  I know a guy who's had bacon and eggs for breakfast every morning for over 20 years. His cholesterol and overall health are dandy. 

Does he have good genes? Certainly. Has he heard incorrect medical advice? Ehh, let's do a study on that.

                                                            ******************