a bit of due diligence

Maybe as a first principle - and a bit of procrastination or hedging - ideally, I would like my friend to find a doctor who agrees with me. (I am not a doctor.)

I do feel fairly confident in suggesting that my friend inquire around a bit to see if he can find someone with legitimate expertise who is not so very ready to excise a vital part of his body.

A note, here: My prior experience with surgery to remove part of the colon: my air conditioning guy had the surgery. It slowed him down a lot, I think, put him out of commission for a couple of years, but he did return to do an inspection and tuneup, a couple of years later. I told Ben I didn't think it was the worst thing they could suggest ... meaning I think it's survivable, and maybe you can get back to normal ... probably, I should say.

About that "probably." I would say Ben's in pretty good shape, so surgery should go fine, and then I would say he can ensure full recovery by taking good care of himself. Regarding that last note, though, taking good care of oneself is what I'm recommending to avoid the need for surgery at all, so why wait until after the surgery.

Actually, here's another ideal scenario: Ben practices some of the self care disciplines I'm going to describe, then returns for a checkup, and is told the cancer has disappeared. There are stories to that effect.

Incidentally, another detail regarding Ben's story: he told us he had no symptoms at all. That makes me all the more skeptical of the doctor's thinking. However, getting a prognosis like that is, in itself, in a very real sense, a kind of symptom. (That's how I see it.) As such, it's like any other symptom (a core piece of my philosophy, here): it's your body (or, in this case, life) telling you it needs some kind of attention. More details later. I told Ben and Melissa that I was going to describe things they can do, and I am. See next posts.

One last scenario, here: it sure sounds to me like Ben is getting very limited information. This is ubiquitous in medicine, it seems to me. (It's not quite universal, though. I always take the approach of asking question about my condition, and sometimes I've received, in response, real information - and no hint of a medical prescription!) Also, I've been having the interesting experience of making assertions about health and disease, and then seeing them confirmed in news reports on science and medicine, shortly after. So I wonder if it might be possible to find in depth information on the science on this condition.

I just went to Yahoo and searched on "cancer." I specified a search of news. I got a lot of ... well, not exactly what I was looking for.

I then searched on "effectiveness of cancer therapies." (My ultimate take on the present matter: if the therapies that are being prescribed are notoriously ineffective, why on earth should they be pursued ... all the more so if they promise a less than desirable outcome at best ... or, alternatively, if there is a high probability of a less than desirably outcome, you would want to do your best to make sure it was quite necessary. Now, if I were saying this but could not offer a better prognosis, I wouldn't be making sense. My prognosis: using quality self-care - which, again, includes much due diligence - you can have good health, long life, no trauma (beyond normal life experience!), confidence going forward, much enjoyment ... and a high likelihood of success. Granted, my evidence is testimonial, not (extensively) statistical.)

Here's a source, the first listed by the my second search: http://www.cancer.gov/. I think it does look useful. It started to answer some of the questions I've suggested here (especially about the facts on standard treatments).