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.

• hylaride

  today at 6:15 PM

  > The worst part, by far, was the emptying / prepping.

  This. The procedure itself was a snap (I was completely sedated; I'm in Canada), but it was NOT a fun 2 days of "pooping" pure liquid and being hungry. I don't think I was away from the toilet for more than 20 minutes at a time.

• trebligdivad

  today at 5:59 PM

  Yeh if you want to improve the screening rate then someone needs to figure out how to make the prep easier.

• jchw

  today at 6:08 PM

  I didn't actually mind the prepping too much personally. Just to be safe I started early to go on the long end of what they suggested with the diet and basically just ate baked, unseasoned chicken for 10 days. Then did the bowel prep; a lot of people hate the drink, but idk. I thought it was fine. Maybe better to assume it will suck though, that way you at least can't be disappointed.

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

  Same here, thank god.

• jedberg

  today at 5:59 PM

  > The worst part, by far, was the emptying / prepping.

  Protip to those who have it coming up: Ask for the pill prep instead of the "sludge" prep. You end up spending the day on the toilet either way, but at least it doesn't taste as bad with the pills.

  • aeternum

    today at 6:08 PM

    It depends, if you want the best possible colonoscopy quality, do the liquid/"sludge" prep, the general consensus is it cleans you out the best and gives the best possible view during the procedure. However that's only true if you actually do it properly and drink all the liquid.

    A decent number of patients can't/don't get through all the liquid in which case the pills are far better.

  • mrbonner

    today at 6:06 PM

    I’m doing it this year. Does the pill work as effectively as the drink?

    • jedberg

      today at 6:14 PM

      Some doctors will say yes, some no. Best bet is to do what your doctor suggests, but at least ask if the pills are an option.

• jhghbj

  today at 6:03 PM

  I ended up paying 15000 usd due tó complications.. that was the worst part for me

  • grassfedgeek

    today at 6:06 PM

    Which country are you in? Did you have insurance? What kind of complications? Have you recovered completely?

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.

> 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.

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.

• tomjakubowski

  today at 6:09 PM

  Does insurance see it this way? I've had a couple precancerous moles (melanoma in situ) removed, which seems similar, and my health insurance provider billed me more than I was expecting because they didn't categorize it as preventive care.

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

• today at 6:06 PM

> 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

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.

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...

• matthewdgreen

  today at 5:50 PM

  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?

  • no_no_no_yes

    today at 5:58 PM

    yes I've had both a colonoscopy and a sigmoidoscopy (less invasive colonoscopy).

    I'm not sure what the botches are here. In the sigmoidoscopy they took out a couple of polyps, in the colonoscopy (more recently than the sigmoidoscopy) they just did a cancer check-up given family history.

    I wish those articles discusses the "botches", I'd like to know since from my understanding these are pretty safe procedures

  • thinkloop

    today at 5:59 PM

    I did mine without anesthesia/sedatives. There were moments of discomfort when they pump gas to expand the area - feels like a big fart is stuck in your gut - but otherwise no big deal, especially knowing that the pain is not dangerous. Recommend. It eliminates recovery time afterwards (you can drive yourself home) and increases safety.

• 1shooner

  today at 5:56 PM

  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.

• etempleton

  today at 5:57 PM

  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.

• malfist

  today at 5:56 PM

  Nothing you do is risk free.

• pkaye

  today at 5:57 PM

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

• jedberg

  today at 5:56 PM

  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.

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

• adaml_623

  today at 6:05 PM

  I'd love to know the causation for that correlation

  • saladdays

    today at 6:07 PM

    Perhaps higher sugar consumption from fueling techniques?

Well turning off P53 had nothing to do with it. It is anything but vaccines.

• brewcejener

  today at 6:07 PM

  The same vaccines that can't be tested against a control group for ethical reasons.

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

• polynomial

  today at 6:08 PM

  Less MTTF and more MTTR