Offensive Squid

Andrea_A said:

I had to undergo a colonoscopy in spring, and the bowel preparation is the worst part. It does not automatically mean something, it is part of early cancer diagnosis (and if the physician finds polyps/adenomas [precanceroses], he could remove them endoscopically): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..cPCP9s  

Once past 50, it's the prudent thing to do, I hear, especially if it there is a family history of colon cancer.  By prep, you mean drinking chemicals that blow you out top to bottom?  Because I am trying to imagine that being worse than someone putting a camera up my ass.  I have had a camera up my bladder, and I can report that is disturbing, although assuredly less traumatic and quicker, bladders being small.

And I remembered that he wrote about planning a website relaunch. Could this be a reason for the freeze?

Mebbe.  I was assuming the worst – that he got bored with the crawl format and defected to Facebook.

I miss the 'Crawl, too, though I'd been more the silent reader. And I'm interested in weird scientific stuff. Got hooked due to the Squidgate mess, so in a very special manner I have to thank B&B for this …

The science aggregator stuff  is part of the charm, definitely, since it overlaps with my interests.

Hljothlegur said:

sheila said:

He posted a facebook update about needing to spend time writing.

http://howaboutyoufoc.us/

 

Time writing on Facebook?

Okay, the nice part of my brain that sits with its hands folded, smiling, informs me that that's unkind.  I know he's writing a novel, which probably takes up lots of time.

I do get Teh Crawl for free, so I can't legitimately, rationally, complain about the service not being worth it, can I?  No.  I just feel conflicted and peevish because as much as I hate, hate, hate, Facebook, I use it.  There are people whom I can only maintain contact with there, because traditional address-n-phone-number exchanges are too heavy for some of the more tenuous connections, and I feel increasingly peevish at losing a free focussed service via Peter.  I know, boohoo, so tough to be me, eh?  :)

It's like automatic paycheck deposit.  It became manditory, and I was so annoyed because I loved being able to hold my paycheck in my hands, and cash it and hold that money in my hands.  Straight transfer is less rewarding and it took me years to get over my childish huffiness about it.

Hljothlegur said:

Hljothlegur said:

sheila said:

He posted a facebook update about needing to spend time writing.

http://howaboutyoufoc.us/

 

Time writing on Facebook?

---

Okay, the nice part of my brain that sits with its hands folded, smiling, informs me that that's unkind.  I know he's writing a novel, which probably takes up lots of time.

 
Yeah, that was snarky. I've been trying to cut down on snark in my life.

Posting comments to facebook is a lot less drain on time than putting thought in to a lengthy blog post. Hell, it's easier for me to do. I've intended to post some longer posts here following up to some interesting article I read but I flop over and just post a snippet and a "look here!" weak comment. same thing has happened to me on mailing lists and other places. I'm fail for a while now.

aside, his comment about his autoresponder being more well written was pretty funny.

aside aside, I wonder if he's tired of blogging?

sheila said:

aside aside, I wonder if he's tired of blogging?

Dunno.  I would think that might get old eventually. And he's getting older, too, so maybe the pressure of words backed up in his brain is less, hence less need to type out hundreds of them out every day.  My father's theory was that everyone had a certain number of words they needed to get out every day, and that was why his job was to listen politely while Mom nattered on – she wasn't done with her quota.  Peter must have had a pretty big daily quota for many years; maybe his quota is lower now?  As a writer, might it become paramount of put those towards paying work?  Dunno.

Post edited 2:39 pm – July 12, 2011 by Hljothlegur

sheila said:

---

But seriously, from wikipedia's Prostate cancer screening page we have

Screening is controversial. Prostate cancer can develop into a fatal, painful disease, but it can also develop so slowly that it will never cause problems during the man's lifetime.

etc.

I am guessing you don't have a prostate, but I wanted to post for other people just in case.

It's entirely possible that PSA tests and manual exams don't on average decrease mortality, of course.  I am suspicious of the Wikipedia slant in general, and as a source for medical information, I dunno, man.  Makes me itchy.  (The old Wikipedia being primarily edited by a circle jerk of non- experts with definite axes to grind.)  Here, for instance, if we go the 2008 review article in Annals of Internal Medicine by the USPSTF, it does not say that "Clinical screening for prostate cancer are controversial", or that screening is ineffective,  it actually says is that the studies already done are not good enough to draw firm conclusions.  From the abstract:

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for prostate cancer in men younger than age 75 years (I statement). Do not screen for prostate cancer in men age 75 years or older (Grade D recommendation).

So what is really being said is that, statistically,  prostate cancer detected at age 75 or later won't get a chance to kill you, because, statistically, you are gonna die of something else first.  In the US, for instance, you are going to die of cardiovascular disease first.  74 or below, more study should probably be done before any recommendation is made.

This might look familiar:  Originally, when mammograms started saying lives by detecting treatable cancers early, there was a guideline that screening start at 40.  Later, the guideline was changed to 50, primarily because, statistically, early detection didn't on average keep enough victims from premature cancer death.  Cancers caught by mammogram after 50, though, could be treated and keep you cancer-free long enough to let you die of a heart attack, the way God intended.

The critical and upspoken fact in all this is cost.  Insurance companies do not want to pay for any cancer screening that, statisically, doesn't save them money.  75 year old cured of his cancer at cost x needs to live y more years of paying premiums to pay for his treatment.  Statistically, if he can't, the insurance industry will bring its cannons to bear on any official looking guidelines suggesting they pay for such screening.  Same thing with mammograms – the industry is willing to pay for the unsuccessful too-late cancer treatment of all those ladies who didn't get screened up to age 49, because it is cheaper than paying for all the false-positive biopsies, mammograms, and recurrance treatments screening them would have involved.  Makes me feel warm and fuzzy all over. :)

Hljothlegur said:

sheila said:

---

But seriously, from wikipedia's Prostate cancer screening page we have

Screening is controversial. Prostate cancer can develop into a fatal, painful disease, but it can also develop so slowly that it will never cause problems during the man's lifetime.

etc.

I am guessing you don't have a prostate, but I wanted to post for other people just in case.

---

It's entirely possible that PSA tests and manual exams don't on average decrease mortality, of course.  I am suspicious of the Wikipedia slant in general, and as a source for medical information, I dunno, man. 

I am replying mostly to say "no duh".

Hurrah!  The Crawl gasped, coughed, wheezed and sat up!  It lives!  IT LIVES!

Hljothlegur said:

And now, with the first salon-style posting, they are arguing about the title of the new novel.  Haha.

Yeah, I just caught up with it yesterday. People cared more about it than I expected. I don't want to know the secret title sauce. Hopefully he sticks with what he thinks and what his editors and other pros might think. Ignore us. Of course, I can blather on and on about stuff so I can disagree with author fans. Don't want to disagree or agree with the author while he's working on it at the same time. NO CROSSING THE STREAMS.