I cant believe this garbage was even on the air..glad it was pulled..and Katie Couric looks like she needs another Colonoscopy I dont think they went far up the last time
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.
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 keep them 'minting money' than an indirect endorsement 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 preeminent publication 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]:
“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?
You‘ll 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 deliver the 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.
● By hiring so-called “expert spokespersons” who will endorse and champion anyone willing 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 realize 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
https://www.gutsense.org/colonoscopy/colonoscopy-does-not-protect-from-colon-cancer.html