The paper is indeed presenting strong evidence that regular screenings have minimal value.
[1] - https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar...
The paper is indeed presenting strong evidence that regular screenings have minimal value.
[1] - https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar...
He did regular screening, nothing came up in it. When suddenly in one blood report, his counts were low that's when we did some extensive testing. Even with extensive testing, the diagnosis kept changing. From Myelofibrosis to MDS to AML to AEL.
Whole aspects around testing and related studies are very confusing. Tests are not at all accurate and testing is very expensive.
It seems like a scam when it comes to testing industry and pharma industry for such disorders. Bottomline is nothing helped in my father's case and we lost him after spending tons of money.
The fact that medical system remains such an inefficient system till date indicates to me that world leaders doesn't want to solve for health problems. It's an industry for them with lots of money. Everyone seems to be motivated to keep population seek and be subscribed to their drugs.
Sorry for the rant.
That sounds, uh, significant. So to clarify, does that mean people gain 4 months on average by getting this screening? Those who get the cancer gain years, and those that don't gain 0, so the average is 4 months?
If we take your theory at face value, on average the screened people would have an 8 month increase.
It also makes me wonder that if some cancers are rare enough to average to 0 months (rounded down) that could still work out to a 1/500 chance of living to 80 vs 40. Long odds it matters, but big difference if it does.
That is, putting aside monetary costs for the moment (which I know is not a good idea in reality, but want to focus on another issue), you often hear about how false positives cause "added anxiety and unnecessary treatments, which can cause harm", but if a breast cancer screening saves, say, lets one woman live until 80 instead of dying at 40, how many other people's "added anxiety" would it take to say "OK, that test was worth it". I think a lot of folks would go think that saving that life should be valued a lot more than just, say, comparing 40 years for her vs. time/anxiety "wasted" for false positives.