FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
by Konstantin Monastyrsky
following answers expand on some statements I made on video, and provide
additional follow-up/commentary on other related issues:
Q. Why is there such a large spread
between colon cancer incidence and colon cancer death?
The spread between “incidence” and
“mortality” apply to many other cancers, not just colorectal. The
reasons for this disparity are well familiar to epidemiologists,
oncologists, and pathologists:
large number of cancer-related deaths are underreported because people
don‘t die directly from cancer of the colon, rectum, or anus itself,
but from its complications, such as intestinal obstruction, organ
failure (kidney, liver, lungs), cardiac arrest, etc. These outcomes, not
cancer, get reported on death certificates and become the “official
cause of death, such as “colon cancer” is likely to appear on the death
certificate when a person passes away in the oncology wing of a
hospital. If death happens at home or in a hospice, a nurse practitioner
or physician called in to confirm it might not even know that the person
was affected by colon cancer, and is likely to write “cardiac arrest” or
“respiratory failure” instead.
who get operated on and treated for colon cancer may succumb to other
diseases related to age, complications, accidents, suicide, and other
causes, rather than to complications directly related to cancer.
Surgical removal of the colon and/or rectum (colectomy), may extend the life of a colon cancer victim considerably — no question about it. Just
like all other kinds of complex and expensive surgeries, that used to be
restricted by age, money, and access, colectomies are now commonly
accessible even in rural hospitals.
The under-reporting of cancer as the
cause of death sits well with local, state, and federal health
authorities, because a large number of cancer deaths poorly reflect on
mortality statistics, particularly in comparison with other regions or
Q. The trends show a small decrease
in colon cancer incidence and death cited by Ms. Couric (5% for men and
4.5% for women). Do you think this decrease is related to screening
According to the published stats,
about half of Americans over age 50 undergo regular screening
colonoscopies. If the actual reasons for having regular screenings
originally cited by Ms. Couric — i.e. a 90% reduction in colon cancer
death — have been true, we should have seen at least a 45% reduction in
colon cancer death, not 5%.
The 5% decrease in mortality from
year 2000 to 2007 cited by Ms. Couric amounts to 0.71% per year. This
value falls within the so-called statistical “margin of error” and
represents a chance happening, not a trend. Furthermore, the total
number of deaths from colon cancer in any given year is neither
meaningful nor reliable because of the facts outlined above.
Next, when the screening ‘net‘ is so
wide — I am guessing 60 to 70 million colonoscopies have been
performed from 2000 until present — you are bound to catch a small
percentage of early cancers, and postpone (not reduce) mortality due to
radical and aggressive treatment.
The actual data on the growth of
colorectal cancer incidence — about 30,000 more cases in 2007 than in
2000 — supports my argument that screening colonoscopies and
polypectomies are useless at best, or are partially behind this dramatic
The other two less apparent
reasons for the small reduction in the mortality rate from colorectal
cancer aren't too encouraging either:
increase in the death rate from other causes and a decrease in overall
longevity, which means that many people die before developing colon
substantial increase in the number of preventative proctocolectomies —
the complete removal of the colon and/or rectum — in
the cases of ulcerative colitis and Crohn‘s disease. This surgery
reduces the risk of colon cancer by 80%, and they are performed in the
tens of thousands.
Q. Do you believe Ms. Couric
knowingly “sold her soul” to the promoters of colorectal cancers?
Without a doubt, Ms. Couric‘s
original pitch for colorectal cancer screenings, following her husband‘s
tragic death, was sincere, heartfelt, and well intended. It is also
apparent that someone (or more than one) oversold to her on the benefits
of screening colonoscopies just as she later did to the American public.
I would not be surprised to find
out, that most medical doctors past fifty, including board
certified gastroenterologists (who must know better, right?), willingly
submit themselves to conventional and virtual screenings. If these
professionals are so easily duped, how could a vulnerable and hurt Ms.
Couric have resisted the “miraculous” promises of regular
Past her initial “euphoria” over the
alleged benefits of colorectal cancer screening, corporate interests,
including the interests of the GE Healthcare, embraced and skillfully
manipulated her. This is apparent from the content of her prerecorded
The claim of a 90% reduction in mortality due to regular screening was what people wanted to hear, not
what Ms. Couric actually said. Her verbatim statement said: “In fact,
it‘s [colon cancer] more than 90% curable — but only if you get tested
in time.” [link]
This carefully worded legal speak — “but only...”
was intended to absolve Ms. Couric from all and any responsibility for
her deceptive claims because what exactly “tested in time” meant — a
week, a month, or a year — no one knows! And, as we have learned by now, the
actual experiences of screened patients have demonstrated that detecting
and removing polyps does not prevent the incidence of or mortality from
colon cancer [link].
This, unfortunately, means that Ms.
Couric became the willing “face” of a medical racket and large-scale
consumer fraud. It is impossible to assume for even a fleeting moment
that she is not aware of the mounting evidence about the futility
of colon cancer screening, particularly past 2006.
It is also inconceivable —
considering the rules of the tightly regulated TV broadcast networks and
the corporate governance of public companies, such as the CBS
Corporation, — that Ms. Couric, her producers, and corporate lawyers
could have missed my letter from May 19, 2008 or my later post on her
God only knows how many hundreds of billions of
dollars have been “stolen” from the real medical needs of countless
Americans, and how many tens of millions of Americans have been harmed between
2000 and now by conventional colonoscopies, or how many millions of
people have been exposed to cancer-causing radiation by unnecessary CT
In this context (statistically,
morally, and legally), Ms. Couric, her paymasters, and collaborators are just as culpable of “high crimes
against humanity” as any terror masterminds would be —
considering the high exposure to cancer-causing radiation, promoting unnecessary
virtual colonoscopies isn‘t that much different from promoting nuclear
If harming close to 200 people day after day with
unnecessary colonoscopy screening and thousands more with radiation
isn't a crime, what is?
Q. Aren‘t you too harsh on this poor
No, I am not. First, it's reasonable to presume Ms.
Couric benefited financially from the expansion of colonoscopy screening
through the ownership of the General Electric (the owner of NBC
Television) stock and stock options, favorable job reviews, and contract
extensions, but without ever disclosing her affiliation with GE
Healthcare — one of the world‘s largest manufacturers of the CT scanners
used to administer virtual colonoscopies.
Second, Ms. Couric is a public person by
choice. She is subject to the same scrutiny and, if necessary, criticism as all other public persons
are. Furthermore, she has made “a show” from her husband‘s unfortunate
How many celebrities do you know that have
turned their spouse‘s tragic death into ruthless self-promotion,
publicity stunt, and marketing ploy for GE Healthcare, radiologists and gastric endoscopists
who enjoy the spoils of conveyer-style screenings.
Third, this “poor“ woman is also savoring the prestige of
anchoring CBS Evening News along with her $15 million pay package. If
Ms. Couric gave a hoot about your health and life, considering her
enviable perch, she could have exposed the screening colonoscopy racket
just as easily and vigorously as she had initiated it.
Finally, it is not my fault that Ms. Couric
has made herself a willing spokesperson for the multibillion-dollar industry
spawned by screening colonoscopies. Moreover, I am not out to get Ms. Couric, but
am after stopping the deadly outcomes of needless colorectal cancer
Just like Ms. Couric, I am a messenger, albeit on the
other side of the fence. So if anything, my message is not about getting
this “poor woman,” but about saving your “poor ass.”
Q. What about medical doctors, are they complicit in
Except for actual “ringleaders,” most physicians — at least until they learn
about the research behind this report — aren't. Rank-and-file medical doctors are very much like
soldiers in the well-trained army, even though they may think about
Just like all good soldiers, physicians do what
they are told to by the “higher authorities” in their respective
and are easily manipulated by deceptive advertising, fabricated research,
planted salutary articles in the medical journals, and continuous education courses
embellished with all of the above.
The physicians who don't question the system are amply rewarded for
their obedience and well insulated from liability because they follow
“generally accepted clinical guidelines,” dead and injured be damned.
On the other hand, the mavericks who question the
system or object too vigorously, risk losing their medical licenses and
livelihood — a typical mafia-style arrangement. Therefore, if you are
expecting your “middle-of-the-road” doctor to break the ometrá (the mafia code of
silence), and advise you too vigorously against getting screened
for colon cancer —
Ironically, doctors and their families are victimized
by screening colonoscopies even more than the “meat” — a derogatory term
reserved for patients under care — because of their unrestricted access to
“state-of-the-art” preventative care, the intense peer pressure to “take
good care” of their health, and the same basic dread of death and
disease that haunts you and me.
These three Ds — the Dread of Death and Disease —
give me a faint hope that the recommendations on this site will soon
become mainstream, and you‘ll be spared from the unnecessary harm caused
by harmful screening colonoscopies and the lack of appropriate colorectal cancer
Q. If virtual colonoscopies are so harmful, why are
they permitted and encouraged?
The fear-mongering and promotion of colon cancer
screening serves the financial interests of a narrow group of
endoscopists, radiologists, and radiology equipment
manufacturers who benefit financially from administering this
procedure, not patients. Most likely not even patients in a high-risk
The shortage of qualified endoscopists has been
producing the proliferation of
radiology clinics which specialize in virtual colonoscopy. Some of these
clinics are co-owned by the same gastroenterologists who profit from
regular colonoscopies. To maximize profits, some of the electronic CT
scans are routinely outsourced to radiologists in low-cost countries,
such as India or Pakistan.
So I wasn‘t at all that surprised, that despite
increased risk of cancer from radiation, new screening guidelines were
released on March 6, 2008 by the American Cancer Society and American
College of Radiology, which in addition to colonoscopy, insist on
performing double-contrast barium enema x-rays or a virtual colonoscopy
every five years [link].
So, the answer to the question above: virtual
colonoscopies are permitted and encouraged because they are a source of
windfall profit to entities who promote them. If they really cared about
your health, they would have told you to avoid them like the plague, or,
at the very least, advised you that a single abdominal CT scan is
just as cancer-prone as smoking your entire life or making your living
by mining asbestos.
Still in doubt? If these CT scanners were
indeed safe and harmless, why would doctors and nurses ensconce themselves behind
leaded walls, wear protective shields, and carry personal radiation monitors?
Q. What was Ms.
Couric's financial gain in promoting colonoscopy screening?
I don‘t believe Ms. Couric started campaigning for
colon cancer screening with dollar signs on her mind, and I said that
much in my report, prior answers, and elsewhere on this site. Also, I
doubt that anyone ever said to her: “Katie, we are going to make a
killing out of this...”
They didn't have to... Ms. Couric was employed by the
NBC Corporation, a subsidiary of General Electric. Just like any other
senior employee of any major American public company, she was (I presume
with 99% certainty) receiving stock options, 401K, and other financial
incentives related to her ratings, advertising revenues, and overall
performance of GE stock.
After Ms. Couric took a strong public position on
colonoscopy, and particularly after her televised colonoscopy, her
show's rating, public stature, popularity, and name recognition
skyrocketed, and, inevitably, yielded her even greater financial gain,
larger compensation, larger speaking and endorsement fees (if any),
opportunities for fat book advances, and so on.
Finally, when CBS hired Ms. Couric to anchor the
evening news, she was offered, reportedly, a $15 million annual salary,
the highest among her peers even today. According to press reports, NBC
had counter-offered her $20 million, but she declined because,
apparently, the extra $5 millions weren't worth missing out on her
social life “denied” by an early — up at 3-4 am — morning schedule.
Obviously, this huge salary and counter-offer weren't
related to Ms. Couric‘s “hard news” journalistic credentials, but to her
celebrity status, and ratings cemented earlier with her high profile
work on colon cancer advocacy and public sympathy over her husband‘s
tragic death. That is also why, despite the mounting evidence about the
futility and dangers of colonoscopy screening, she continued to milk
this subject at CBS, albeit with much less intensity and enthusiasm than
Q. Are you concerned with
getting hit with a defamation lawsuit by Ms. Couric or her proxies?
Well, in this day-and-age anything is possible,
especially when you are confronting an 800 lb gorilla in a sheep's
disguise. That said, the odds of Ms. Couric going this route are slim
for several well-known reasons:
(1) Ms. Couric had ample opportunity to address all
of the issues raised in my original letter in private, and fess up to
the American public, but she decided not to. I am sure she consulted
with her lawyers and bosses before making this reckless decision.
Apparently, as was the case with Ford Pinto, tobacco, and countless
others, they decided to gamble on this one. So what else is new? Are you
shocked and surprised about this corporate hubris, arrogance, and
malfeasance? After the Madoff affair? After the implosion of Wall
Street? Give me a break...
(2) There isn't anything in my report, books, or web
site that even remotely defames Ms. Couric. Pointing out that someone is
'lying' based on the presented facts isn't defamation, but the
expression of one's educated opinion. At this point, the burden of proof
that screening colonoscopy is a safe and effective procedure delivering
a “90% cure” of colon cancer is on Ms. Couric and her collaborators, not
(3) The American legal system isn't receptive to
super-rich celebrities abusing First Amendment privileges under the
disguise of defamation. Good luck finding a court to take her case,
claiming that Mr. Monastyrsky “knowingly and recklessly made false
statements about Ms. Couric that caused personal or professional injury
to her reputation.”
(4) Any lawsuit of this kind will only attract even
more attention to Ms. Couric's persona, and in an extremely negative
And, what exactly is Ms. Couric going to win from
filing a defamation lawsuit? She doesn't need any more money. It will
take years to litigate. Throughout the process she‘ll be an emotional
and physical wreck, because she has been too sheltered for far too long
to deal with this kind of stress, adversity, negative press, discovery
proceedings, and so on.
My attorneys will also have an opportunity to depose
her going back to 2000, and discover even more compromising facts about
her role in this charade, including financial gains. All of that will be
discussed in the open court, including the court of public opinion, and,
court permitting, on my blog and the rest of the media.
Above all, her suit isn't going to bring back her
goody-two-shoes reputation, or make screening colonoscopies any safer,
more effective, or necessary for the majority of Americans.
Finally, if every American writer, journalist, and
public activist was to be scared of celebrities or corporate wrath, this
would be the Soviet Union, not America! Thank God, I left that awful
place 30 years ago, and never looked back.
And even if she does, so what? It will only mean that
even more Americans will learn about the dangers of colonoscopy
screening, which was my primary objective to start with.
Q. Doctors used colonoscopy to diagnose my mother‘s
colon cancer! This saved her life. It's very frustrating
and confusing to watch your report...
I understand the frustration and angst of people who
have been affected by colorectal cancer, either themselves, or through
the suffering of their loved ones. My mother passed away in January of
2003 from a misdiagnosed and mistreated ovarian cancer, and we fought
for 16 arduous months to keep her alive despite an array of gross
All along, and in spite of her incredible survival
feat, we (my wife and I) were treated with contempt and
indifference by her doctors. Just to keep her safe from harm, we hired
an attendant to “guard” and properly nourish her throughout the day
while in the hospital.
In retrospect, she could still have been alive, if we
had gone for treatment to a local oncologist instead of taking her to
presumably one of the best oncology centers in the world — the Memorial
Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. When we brought her in
for the very first time with severe ascites, she wasn‘t even tested for
CA-125 — a basic blood test for ovarian cancer.
Instead, and after a month-long delay, she was
scheduled for a biopsy to determine the source of her ascites on the
presumption that women of her age — 80 at the time — do not get ovarian
cancer. No surprise here: Medicare pays tens of thousands of dollars for
biopsy, and next to nothing for CA-125. With hands in the honey pot, why
bother with mere crumbs?
That unnecessary biopsy caused a severe infection that
required massive abdominal surgery to remove the abscess along with
several liters of pus, and the scars from that surgery eliminated the
possibility of removing her ovaries.
That left her with just one option — chemotherapy,
which stopped working after the tenth round. Unable to ingest nutrients
because of an ensuing intestinal obstruction, she passed away several
months later in our house and in her own bed.
My mother's 82
birthday, November 4th, 2002, after two abdominal surgeries, and
ten chemotherapies. She passed away two-and-half months later.
In the process of caring for her, I learned a great
deal about critical care nutrition. Thanks to these insights, my mother
enjoyed relative normalcy throughout her ordeal. Even chemo treatments
were mainly non-events — no usual nausea, no fatigue, no throwing up, no
constipation, no depression, no bed sores, no blood clots, no
circulatory problems, or any other serious quality-of-life issues that
plague so badly people half her age.
In the end, Medicare paid an estimated $300,000 to the
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. The more damage they caused, the
more they were paid to fix it! Badly shaken, we ignored our attorney
advice to file malpractice lawsuit, so we could erase these events from
memory and return to normalcy — a very common happening among grieving
Depressed, grief-stricken, and guilt-ridden, I had a hard time
resuming my work on the talk radio in New York. It took me almost two
years to get back “on track.” Consequentially, the sales of my
Russian-language books tanked, and we almost lost our publishing business. As
skilled and proficient as I am in these matters when it concerns others,
I failed to recognize and address post-traumatic stress syndrome while
dealing with it myself.
Also, as I mentioned in the Death By Colonoscopy report, Tatyana‘s dad survived a bout with late stage colon cancer in
2003, even though he wasn‘t given much time by his doctors. The
experience gained from my mom‘s ordeal helped him to survive the surgery
and fully recover. Because of his advanced age — 80 at that time — and
poor prognosis, he was spared of chemotherapy, and that decision turned
into a blessing. Tatyana and I convalesced him back to normalcy, and,
all things considered, he is doing great eight years later (page updated
on November 15, 2011).
So, if anyone thinks that I don‘t know first hand what
it is like watching a loved one withering away from terminal cancer, or
taking care of a parent, affected by colorectal cancer, they‘re badly
mistaken. And, to tell you the truth, without that painful and costly
experience and insights, I wouldn‘t have had the gumption to touch this
unpleasant and scary subject with certainty and conviction.
Past aside, my work isn‘t about people getting affected
by colorectal cancer, but about making sure that healthy people (a)
don‘t get killed or injured in the name of “cancer prevention” that
doesn‘t deliver, and (b) teaching people that most cancers, including
colorectal, aren‘t a mystical plague that strike only the unlucky, but a
predictable, preventable, and avoidable disease.
I do realize that my work flies in the face of
conventional (and supremely profitable) thinking, and that it is very
polarizing, especially for people outside of cancer research and
academia (this bunch is much more humble and open minded). No surprise there: just
two generations ago people were told by their very doctors that smoking
is perfectly safe, even healthy, and anyone who begged to differ was
labeled a freak, so what‘s new?
Now, lets get back to the “colonoscopy saved my
mother‘s life” argument. There is a sea of a difference between a
life-saving diagnostic colonoscopy for people already affected
with cancer, and a screening colonoscopy for healthy people
that‘s not only not preventing anything, but may also cause death,
injury, and contribute to other cancers.
When the patient is brought to ER with colorectal
bleeding, unrelenting pain, or obstruction – colonoscopy is what doctors
do to discover the source of the problem, and this is what they should
do! And if they detect colon cancer, and save one‘s life, God bless the
doctors and the patient, and I am all for that. But, as I said, this
situation has nothing to do with bringing healthy and asymptomatic
people to the same hospital, and making some of them sick or dead in the
name of non-existent and non-attainable prevention.
Thus, in this particular situation, the proper question
— Konstantin, would screening colonoscopy a year or
two before my mother was diagnosed with colon cancer have prevented it?
To that, I can only restate what has already been
established by mainstream clinical research and published in the leading
● First, when people ask me this question, what they often mean to
ask is this: “Will my parents' bad genes kill me too if I fail to get
screened more often?” Unlikely, because only 3% of all
colorectal cancers are hereditary, and they usually kill people in their
early forties. Besides, you only need a single blood test to screen out
genetic risks, not a colonoscopy.
● Second, screening colonoscopy can‘t detect 40% of all precancerous
lesions and polyps located in the right (ascending) colon;
● Third, it misses up to 30% of polyps located in the left (descending)
colon even in the hands of the most experienced and attentive
● Fourth, not all colorectal cancers are preceded by detectable
● And, finally,
even when all of the polyps are detected and removed during screening
colonoscopy, most patients develop cancers in-between the screenings
In other words, screening colonoscopy is a crapshoot,
not the life-saving diagnostic procedure with a 90% cure rate as it was
presented by the sly and vested “Dr. Couric.” And it is precisely that —
lying about screening colonoscopies‘ alleged benefits — is what I am
adamantly opposed to.
If you still don‘t get it, get screened as often as you
like, or as often as your insurance will pay for it! In turn, I'll pray
for some good doctors to stop this travesty well before you get yourself killed
or injured in the process!
Q. How did you, and not the medical doctors,
come up with this information?
Many people have this question on their minds, but
aren't likely to ask them for fear of embarrassing me or themselves.
Actually, I find these concerns absolutely legit, and deserving
detailed, explicit answers:
Medical training. First, I went to a medical school that was also attended
by future doctors, and received a similar base medical education from
the same professors, in the same lecture halls, in the same morgue, and
using the same lancet to dissect corpses.
To a large extent, the specialized curriculum of a
pharmacist is closer to what I do now — analyzing the connections
between foods and diseases — than the ‘clinical sciences‘ that are
taught to medical doctors. In other words, I don‘t need to know a
vagina‘s anatomy and physiology in the same minutiae as a gynecologist
does in order to become a better lover.
Interpreting facts isn't science. Second, I do not make science, but report it. My
analysis of screening colonoscopies or other medical controversies is
based entirely on the fundamental academic and clinical research emanating
from the medical doctors themselves, including those directly involved
in colonoscopy screenings.
Anyone telling you otherwise — that all of
this is just Mr. Monastyrsky's opinion, — is being coy with the facts.
In other words, no one can watch my video or read my books, and claim
with a straight face that I make science. I don‘t, nor do I pretend that
I do, and I have no interest in doing this.
All I do is read the available
and up-to-date research, think it over, analyze my thinking, and report
my conclusions. Any unbiased investigator doing the same will come up
with similar conclusions.
When all is said, done, and delivered on a silver
platter, it sure looks simple. Third, I work with what I have — medical
textbooks, journals, and references, and address what I can — basic
human physiology, evolutionary anthropology, forensic nutrition, and
common sense. Then, I wrap up my findings in accessible language, and
work hard to make it fun by using irony, humor, and occasionally
indignation. And there isn‘t anything easy or simple about it.
confusing the apparent simplicity of my writings with “simplicity of
mind” must be an imbecile! Describing complex medical or scientific
concepts in accessible language is ten times more difficult than writing
in “medicalese.” This “scientific” lingo is inaccessible to an average reader
not because the people who use it are great scientists or good doctors, but because they
are bad writers and terrible communicators.
Here is a representative example of some doctor-speak that deals with
the exact same subject as my investigative report:
“The rate of colonoscopy in matched controls did not
vary by site of primary CRC (9.7%, 9.9%, and 9.8% of controls matched to
case patients with left-sided cancer, right-sided cancer, and unknown
site of cancer, respectively). The inverse association of death from
left-sided CRC with colonoscopy was substantial for attempted
colonoscopy (OR, 0.39 [CI, 0.34 to 0.45]) and complete colonoscopy (OR,
0.33 [CI, 0.28 to 0.39]). Colonoscopy was not associated with death from
right-sided CRC (OR from any attempted colonoscopy, 1.07 [CI 0.94 to
1.21]; OR from complete colonoscopy, 0.99 [CI, 0.86 to 1.14])” [link]
Do you understand any of it? Is it because the author
is a genius, and you are stupid? No, it is because the author can‘t
write in plain English. Unfortunately, this style of writing is not only
tolerated, but encouraged, so it looks “scientific” and intimidating to
pumpkins like you and me.
The whole purpose of science is to make one‘s findings
accessible and clearly understood. The sole purpose of the above pseudo-science is to make the
writer appear smart (and the reader — stupid), or to obscure the findings, or to make the trivial
Independent investigator. Fourth, to be fair to medical
doctors, I am not a part of their guild, so there is no peer pressure
to conform to the prevailing groupthink or fear professional ostracism
for “paddling” against the current. Nor do I need to be concerned over a
professional reprimand for questioning the prevailing wisdom or fear
losing my license and livelihood for breaking down profitable rackets.
I also discuss these underlying issues in the following sections:
» Doctors and fiber: How livestock feed became health food;
» Respect Thy Doctor;
isn't my doctor telling me about your approach if it is so simple and
Looking at the
big picture. Fifth, As a broad generalist and independent
investigator, I have a substantial advantage over narrowly-focused
specialists. Each of them looks only at their own very limited field of
research, and is doing his/her best to solve their individual ‘puzzle.‘
I, on the other hand, look at the whole picture, take advantage of all
available findings, and put the entire puzzle together.
Here is a good example of a very simple jigsaw puzzle,
just 108 shuffled pieces. Do you have a clue what this puzzle
Actually, this is my portrait
from the Biography page. A medical doctor investigating a certain aspect
of colonoscopy screening may only see 10-15 random pieces out of 108
in this picture. Can you expect that doctor to guess what‘s behind those limited
pieces when you have just failed to figure out what was behind the
And that is what I do — deliberately collect all of the
jigsaw puzzle pieces, and take time to put them together. When the final
picture is finally assembled and explained, it looks so darn simple: look, guys, this
is that Russian dude!
Alas, it isn‘t that simple, and even if it was, medical
doctors aren‘t paid for putting together puzzles or writing in Pulitzer-style prose. And that is why I, not
them, came up first with this information about colorectal screening.
And if this still bothers you, then do what any
well-trained scientist does in a similar situation – bring this
information to an unbiased person with a background in medical research,
and ask his or her opinion. Hopefully, that will put your mind at