Hacker News Reader

Untreated detectable cancers still kill relatively quickly, the only time they’re not a major concern is when people have other major medical issues.

For perspective even with all the advances in modern medicine in 2020 and thus a pandemic, cancer was still the #2 killer in the US after heart disease. It killed over 600,000 Americans in 2020 and that’s a 27% improvement over what it was doing as recently as 2001.

That said, there’s currently believed to be a long undetectable period where the body fights off most pre cancers. We’re approaching the ability to detect cancers below 0.5mm which we don’t have much clinical data on.

>it would be so expensive that funding for other health programs would need to be reduced

But that's a different thing. I'm sorry, I will not talk about that.

> But that's a different thing. I'm sorry, I will not talk about that.

For people setting policies (and that includes doctors) cost is absolutely not a different thing.

If you can afford to pay for everything without involving insurance, by all means do whatever tests you want. If you're a doctor you don't want to maybe help Betty while definitely hiring Veronica.

>I'm sorry, I will not talk about that.

You are also not the only participant in the conversation.

I think you’ve missed that he’s not a participant in your conversation at all.

> Most breast tumors and prostate tumors will not kill you or affect your life much.

This is yet another fallacy.

A prostate cancer takes about 10 years to kill you. If you're 80, then it's probably not worth pursuing aggressive treatment. You're likely to die of something else.

However, if you're 40 then it's another story entirely.

Untrue wrt prostate cancer. Since the average date it’s detected is 70 and 2/3rds of the population is obese, then of course most people will die of something else. If you are non-obese and in good shape, then get aggressive treatment.

That aggressive treatment may leave you incontinent before you turn 50, and likely would not have killed you if untreated.

“Likely” to not have killed you only if you’re part of the obese and overweight majority. For right-sized people, it’s likely to kill you.

Citation?

I'm interested in those studies. Do you have them handy or will I need to resort to some Google fu?

It mentions Angelina Jolie as a good example of how fear can lead to drastic actions.

Probably better to find an article talking about the general problem to find more references.

Wikipedia has this:

The Cochrane collaboration (2013) states that the best quality evidence neither demonstrates a reduction in cancer specific, nor a reduction in all cause mortality from screening mammography. When less rigorous trials are added to the analysis there is a reduction in mortality due to breast cancer of 0.05% (a decrease of 1 in 2000 deaths from breast cancer over 10 years or a relative decrease of 15% from breast cancer). Screening over 10 years results in a 30% increase in rates of over-diagnosis and over-treatment (3 to 14 per 1000) and more than half will have at least one falsely positive test. This has resulted in the view that it is not clear whether mammography screening does more good or harm. Cochrane states that, due to recent improvements in breast cancer treatment, and the risks of false positives from breast cancer screening leading to unnecessary treatment, "it therefore no longer seems beneficial to attend for breast cancer screening" at any age. Whether MRI as a screening method has greater harms or benefits when compared to standard mammography is not known.

>it is not clear whether mammography screening does more good or harm

> the best quality evidence neither demonstrates a reduction in cancer specific, nor a reduction in all cause mortality from screening mammography.

But you are arguing that regular screening is bad.

You forgot your lines, man!

> Depending on the model...

I can’t guess. Which is the older one?

The one recommending it for everyone over 40.

They pushback against too much screening is relatively recent, and thus younger doctors are more likely to adopt it.

I also couldn't guess. There are equally plausible stories the other way: "obviously the older one is the one who doesn't recommend, since they're more experienced and have seen over thousands of patients how often it doesn't help...".

> What was often excluded in the noise was that if it were mandated for all girls as some states were recommending, it would be so expensive that funding for other health programs would need to be reduced.

This is an argument from scarcity. If you have a severely limited amount of a resource, it makes sense to sacrifice some people, so that more people can receive life-saving care.

If the resource is not scarce, then this simply doesn't apply. These days HPV vaccine (in Europe) is around $30, so it makes sense to just vaccinate everybody.

> Preventive medicine is good - to an extent. Beyond that it is bad.

Nope. It's always good, but sometimes it's too expensive.

> These days HPV vaccine (in Europe) is around $30, so it makes sense to just vaccinate everybody.

These days it's likely a very different from 2007 when it was being debated.

There argument wasn't that no one should get Gardasil. Just that it would hurt the health of the society if it was mandated for all. Obviously if you had the money it's good to get it

Yes, and this argument indeed holds in the case of extra MRI screenings. We simply don't have enough MRI units to screen everybody every year.

On the other hand, the quantity of MRI units is not fixed. We can always build more, they are just inherently very expensive. And if you can afford an MRI scan from your personal disposable income, then what's the problem?