The Medical Advisor

Researchers delving into the timing of subsequent colonoscopies found that for some people, the risks are no different if they wait 15 years instead of 10. The invasive and expensive nature of colonoscopies makes determining how to maximize their usefulness—particularly when it comes to follow-up screenings—a prominent topic of research. It’s undisputed that the surgical-based test can save lives, but the timing remains a moving target. Three years ago, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force lowered the recommended age for the first colorectal cancer screening by five years—from 50 years of age to 45. Now, the gap between the first and second tests is being scrutinized. Long-term data used in a JAMA Oncology study published May 2, 2024 suggests it may be time to move the follow-up screening back five years in certain circumstances. Specifically, the study indicates that anyone who doesn’t have a family history of colorectal cancer and whose first colonoscopy was free of polyps—abnorm...

A recent viral post by William Makis sparked widespread discussion in the cancer and repurposed-drug community after a Florida physician in his 70s reportedly experienced his first completely polyp-free colonoscopy in 25 years while taking ivermectin and mebendazole for Stage 3 prostate cancer. The story quickly gained traction because it touched on a growing scientific topic: the role of PAK1 signaling in colon polyps, colorectal cancer, and abnormal cellular growth. While the case is anecdotal and does not prove causation, the underlying biology is more interesting than many critics realize. Research over the past 15 years has linked PAK1 (p21-activated kinase 1) to colorectal adenomas, Wnt/β-catenin signaling, cancer cell proliferation, and tumor progression. Multiple preclinical studies have also shown that ivermectin can inhibit PAK1 activity. Could this help explain the unexpected colonoscopy result? Here’s what the science actually says. What Happened in the Viral Colonoscopy S...

As discussed in  Part 1  of this series, colonoscopies are a major money-maker for the conventional medicine machine, generating at least $42B per year, year after year. Is it any wonder they backpedal on any suggestions that could reduce the number of annual procedures? The caveat is always ‘colonoscopies are the Gold Standard for screening’  (maybe it’s really just for the GOLD)?  The cost of complications are not taken into consideration when analyzing the annual procedure fees. I also briefly talked about polyps – which (surprisingly)  rarely  become cancerous. It should be no surprise that doctors can charge more for the procedure if they remove a tiny benign polyp. We reviewed the risks of colonoscopies, including the REAL number of side effects and complications from this exam, especially when a polyp is removed. We discussed perforations, infections, and the importance of asking your doctor how many scopes s/he has done! The skill of the examiner is...