Peter Attia· MD
in our practice we think 40 is the age at which a person should have their first colonoscopy if they have no history of colon cancer
Loading…
The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
in our practice we think 40 is the age at which a person should have their first colonoscopy if they have no history of colon cancer
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
about when i had my first one was 40 or 41. i'm 49 right now and i'm scheduled for a colonoscopy in a month and that'll probably be my fourth one
about when i had my first one was 40 or 41. i'm 49 right now and i'm scheduled for a colonoscopy in a month and that'll probably be my fourth one
I mean you know I'm 50 I've already had three colonoscopies I get them every three years and I will continue to do that until my life expectancy is so short that it becomes irrelevant and um again totally different approach um so we we have to con and am I suggesting that you know everybody get a colonos every three years of course I'm not right what I'm suggesting is that everybody think about their own risk-reward tradeoff and decide what's the what's the cost benefit analysis
which by the way is a little more aggressive than some people would but I will do a Colo guard in between
today I was very happy to receive the news that I had a nine out of nine prep complete SQL intubation retroflex lots of time in the colon no pops I'm not going to repeat this for 5 years