Had my first colonoscopy 4 months ago, after going for a couple of years with every red flag symptom under the sun.

The procedure was a piece of cake. As the standard is where I'm from (Norway), I was only administered some sedatives - but honestly I couldn't feel much difference. I watched the procedure on the screen, which was quite fascinating.

The worst part, by far, was the emptying / prepping. A month prior to the colonoscopy I took a stool sample (negative for blood), but my doc wanted to be safe.

In the end they nothing was found, not even polyps.

EDIT: I had put of going to it for the longest time, but a friend of mine (35 years old) was diagnosed with stage 4 last year, which pushed me to get it checked out. He had experienced prolonged constipation, that's it. When the tumor was found, the cancer had spread to both of his lungs and liver. He's still alive, and fighting it.

> Yes, if you are currently young, you face higher CRC risk than previous generations did when they were young. That’s the bad news.

Unlike the usual Bettridge's law, the answer to the headline is only a qualified "No".

It is a "So is all other cancers!", which is pretty bad news for folks who are young and healthy right now.

Human biology is such a horror...I've been through it with enough loved ones that I've been left with two obsessions: a) a dignified way to go when my time comes, and b) we should either fix human biology, go post-biological, or simply surrender as a species and be replaced by AI. I know there are many counter-arguments to the above, but I've come to suspect the integrity of our species' rationality under the savage ravaging of Dog.

Why are the "critical terms" in "that headline" in quotes?

Then some clown downvotes this straightforward question. Brilliant.

I recommend getting a colonoscopy if you have any symptoms. There is a lot of stigma that prevents people from being proactive about this type of issue.

My anecdote (M, 35) is that I got one after experiencing symptoms that turned out to be unrelated, but they did find pre-cancerous polyps so now I will be getting them more regularly. I received received meaningful early detection and peace of mind. Also aside from the prep, its a very convenient procedure. You get put under anesthesia and do a quick time travel.

Nice to have a good data-based take on this question make it to the front of HN!

One of our better microscopes these days is DNA sequencing, especially for cancer, and the particular base mutations and the sequences in which they occur give heavy clues about the types of mutagens that are going on. The DNA damage from UV radiation from the sun and bulky adduct repair from smoking damage are vastly different. Even when cells have a defect in a repair mechanism, you can tell which repair mechanism is broken based on the particular base changes in which context.

A study from 2025 reapplied these Alexandronv signatures to colorectal cancer with a global set of cohorts, and suggests that colibactin, a mutagen produced by some strains of E. coli and related bacteria, could be driving some of the increase in early age colorectal cancer:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09025-8

Of course we don't know exactly how much of the increase, or the other explanations; causality is multi-causal and I bring this particular cause up because it's one of the stronger leads so far. But when we've lost our keys in the night, even if its easiest to look under the light of the streetlamp, that doesn't mean its the only place we might find them.

People should be reminded that colonoscopy is not just a screening, it is also preventative. They often find growths that may develop into cancer, and remove them during the procedure.

All this talk about different groupings (and overlapping kinds of time) makes me think of Simpson's Paradox [0], where how we slice things can be very important to what trend we see.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox

> We don’t yet know if colonoscopies are better than other methods of screening

My Gastroentrologist told me just recently that the stool test (Cologuard) is very accurate but must be repeated every 3 years as opposed to getting a Colonoscopy which should be repeated every 7 to 10 years

Personally I am hesitant to do colonoscopy after a relative had a botched procedure. Just this month two celebrities revealed botched colonoscopies. I hope they figure out ways to make this procedure safer.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/celebrity/articles/kathy...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/202...

FYI there are other options besides a full scope for screening now, especially if you are low risk

Is "medical term" used "appropriately"?

Yes. Nothing to see here. And stop abusing quotation marks.

Also increased, or we're now aware of, higher rates in long distance runners.

Get it done!

But not at Kaiser.

$17k later…

Maybe they're all running too many marathons.

Very good visualization repair. I particularly appreciate the TL;DR at the end. In a world of mostly bad popular medical advice this seems competent and at least facially correct.

I guess cancer is the new climate denial

Did you miss the BILLIONS in lawsuits against RoundUp and other herbicides?

Did you miss all the deregulation by the first and now second Trump administration allowing crazy levels of pollution and toxicity among all the industries?

They are still using leaded fuel in prop aircraft at hundreds of airports around the country and world, spraying it on unknowning population

Our environment has never been more dangerous yet people never more ignorant or carefree

Those articles don't really say what the "botch" is. Was it the anesthesia? The actual endoscopic examination? Removal of polyps?

If its the polyp removal, I can certainly see how that could lead to problems. But you're a little stuck: even if you use another technique to do the scan, you still have to remove any polyps you find, don't you?

Healthy skepticism of procedure over-prescription is reasonable and maybe even wise, but I wouldn't really take the celebrities section of USA Today as a data point, maybe not even as a reliable anecdote.

Based on your concern, the question is whether 'botched' procedures are more or less of a risk (both in incidence and consequence) than non-screening.

I had to start getting colonoscopies ahead of schedule because my dad never did, until it was too late. He was scared of doctors after he associated them with family members' unpleasant deaths.

Read the safety statistics and let it override the anecdotes. Colon cancer is easy to prevent and a horrible way to die.

Nothing you do is risk free.

It is one of the most common procedures and is generally very safe. Even a botched procedure probably just means some temp discomfort after the procedure. Much better than the alternative.

You can do a FIT test instead which can be done at home.

My doctor actually doesn't recommend colonoscopy until age 50. But starting at age 40 they have you do the "poop in a box" test instead, and then only have you come in if that shows anything.

The complication rate for colonoscopy is about 3 in 1000, and that is skewed towards people who have polyps, which in and of themselves could be dangerous if not removed.

So it's always a risk tradeoff. You can skip the procedure and risk the effects of the disease it's supposed to detect instead. But if you do the math, you're statistically better off doing the procedure.