We get our teeth checked once or twice a year. I honestly think we’d catch a lot if we did the same with blood tests. We’d probably save a lot on healthcare with early detections and corrections.
That is definitely not clear. Also every procedure has iatrogenic risk.
Look at cancer screenings in the USA: they have gotten more precise and more frequent, so more cancers are caught earlier and survival time increased.
Or has it? Since we find smaller tumors, we find ones that might never have metastasized at all, but intervene anyway. Even for the dangerous ones, earlier detection means earlier treatment, but was the patient going to at 50 either way? That just means they are a cancer patient for a longer period, which by the metrics counts as longer survival.
Since no one can convince you, indeed you should not bother to read any of the extensive literature on the subject.
But consider that if indeed it does not extend lifespan, but does extend treatment span, patients will suffer a worse quality of life on painful treatment that does not help and the concomitant fear.
A shame, because you finger health care expense and this phenomenon increases health care expense.
The book Risk Savvy by Gerd Gigerenzer has a chapter that does a good job of covering these. The entire book is worth a read.
Don't we? The blood tests seem to be the main point of an annual checkup when nothing else is obviously wrong.