In fact as well as appearance I am logical. Screens are just that, they screen for things, and by their nature some slip through - one hopes later screens will catch the problem as it gets larger
https://www.harding-center.mpg.de/en/fact-boxes/early-detect...
One of the reasons cancer screening is pushed so hard is because people use the wrong metrics. People look at 5 year survival rates, or cancer detection rates, to judge success.
Imagine 1000 men with aggressive prostate cancer who don't have screening. After 5 years about 440 of those men will die. That's a survival rate of 44%.
Now imagine those exact same men but pooled with 2000 men who do not have prostate cancer (because this is what screening does). After 5 years those men will still be dead. But the survival rate is now 81%.
This is the bias caused by over-diagnosis.
That seems like a pretty decent way to judge success.
https://gupea.ub.gu.se/handle/2077/57825 page 92: Our data confirm that an organized screening programme reduces mortality by ~30%, a level that is similar to evidence from the ERSPC and the PLCO trial (showing a 25–32% lower risk) (175).
biopsies can cause a stable tumor to metastasize [0]. Sometimes medical screenings are useful, but when you’re looking for problems and don’t actually have symptoms, practitioners have an incentive to find something to treat you for. Ideally you’ll be fired as a patient, but I’ve heard of doctors who do procedures and operate every time they can possibly justify it (“he owes money to everyone.”)