People downvote but it’s true. Most cancer can already be cured if we detect it early, and we have many early detection methods that go un-used because it costs insurance companies more. The scientific/medical arguments against routine screening are weak and pathetic.
Join us in the frozen North. I was three months out from a “scope” to look for colon cancer and my GP had a consult with me on an unrelated matter. He made a frowny face and said “you need another scope”. I told him I just had one. He insisted. So I went. Was on an operating table about four weeks later. I would have been dead without that scope. I had no problem doing that first or second scope because they were “free” (I am guessing about $1300 a year goes from my taxes to health care, so not free, just a decent price considering I have colleagues in the US where that won’t even cover two months).
My wife and I each pay a little into our work health plans but that’s mostly to cover dental and a few other things we really don’t use.
Here’s an example of that coverage: I pay about $20 a month into my work plan. That covers pretty much all our dental work.
I occasionally have to pay out of pocket for some stuff (CPAP machine, dental implant) but get compensated after submitting paperwork (no deductible).
I worked in the US for a bit in a kitchen and was always worried about getting injured. At the time I couldn’t buy muscle relaxant over the counter which I thought was nuts (I get back spasms) until I realized requiring a prescription was one more was to squeeze people for a doctor’s visit.
It’s not that bold, it’s something people have been saying for a long time. It’s been hotly debated for years, and there’s plenty of articles and YouTube videos discussing it
Part of the reason I consider those arguments weak, is we could be dedicating research money to solving those problems, but we don’t. In his video, he also is very quickly glossing over the counter points. For example, the patient who received a heart stent because they detected early narrowing of an artery would not be given a stent today, and instead it would be monitored, which is a good thing. For the breast cancer bit, two paragraphs show up on the screen showing a study that followed women with DCIS. 5/28 of those women died of breast cancer. So by the numbers in that study, testing positive means you would have an 18% chance of dying from breast cancer if you did nothing. Idk about you, but if my ods were practically 1 in 5 I’d be monitoring the situation. Again in the anecdote the patient chose to operate too early, and a good doctor would be advising against that. Lead time bias is the only argument I think isn’t weak, but there also isn’t really enough data on it for us to know for sure. That and the fact that deaths to cancer remains steady instead of going down as diagnosis goes up. I still think it would be better to screen people and monitor them if they test positive rather than wait for symptoms, because so often the symptoms come far too late. I also think more research could be done to reduce false positives and understand what makes some cancer not deadly. It’s severely under funded research because it doesn’t make money and it isn’t glamorous, but it could absolutely save lives
I agree there’s more money in just treating symptoms and EOL care than actually eradicating cancer, but future treatment/eradication is certainly glamorous. Just think of all the celebrities that keep dying from cancer that could come out and say I was saved by X.
Patric Swayze, Steve Jobs, David Bowie and Peewee Herman just to name a few.
I mean, the treatment he had the first time worked, seems to me like it would make sense to do it again, especially with the advances in the treatment since the first time
Nah, this paper is only about the physical ailment, not about bankers & stock brokers.
People downvote but it’s true. Most cancer can already be cured if we detect it early, and we have many early detection methods that go un-used because it costs insurance companies more. The scientific/medical arguments against routine screening are weak and pathetic.
Imagine a country where everyone over 40 gets an annual chest x-ray, and CT scans for smokers/former smokers.
Join us in the frozen North. I was three months out from a “scope” to look for colon cancer and my GP had a consult with me on an unrelated matter. He made a frowny face and said “you need another scope”. I told him I just had one. He insisted. So I went. Was on an operating table about four weeks later. I would have been dead without that scope. I had no problem doing that first or second scope because they were “free” (I am guessing about $1300 a year goes from my taxes to health care, so not free, just a decent price considering I have colleagues in the US where that won’t even cover two months).
That is far less than the average American insurance plan and those include co-pays and deductibles. I hate living in the U.S.
My wife and I each pay a little into our work health plans but that’s mostly to cover dental and a few other things we really don’t use.
Here’s an example of that coverage: I pay about $20 a month into my work plan. That covers pretty much all our dental work.
I occasionally have to pay out of pocket for some stuff (CPAP machine, dental implant) but get compensated after submitting paperwork (no deductible).
I worked in the US for a bit in a kitchen and was always worried about getting injured. At the time I couldn’t buy muscle relaxant over the counter which I thought was nuts (I get back spasms) until I realized requiring a prescription was one more was to squeeze people for a doctor’s visit.
You are aware, that you can get cancer caused by the radiation of these diagnostics?
deleted by creator
It’s not that bold, it’s something people have been saying for a long time. It’s been hotly debated for years, and there’s plenty of articles and YouTube videos discussing it
deleted by creator
I was trying to politely say go look it up yourself and form your own opinion
deleted by creator
That’s not completely true. Look up the video medlifecrisis did on it for just one example. When cancer isn’t cancer or epidemic of fake disease.
Part of the reason I consider those arguments weak, is we could be dedicating research money to solving those problems, but we don’t. In his video, he also is very quickly glossing over the counter points. For example, the patient who received a heart stent because they detected early narrowing of an artery would not be given a stent today, and instead it would be monitored, which is a good thing. For the breast cancer bit, two paragraphs show up on the screen showing a study that followed women with DCIS. 5/28 of those women died of breast cancer. So by the numbers in that study, testing positive means you would have an 18% chance of dying from breast cancer if you did nothing. Idk about you, but if my ods were practically 1 in 5 I’d be monitoring the situation. Again in the anecdote the patient chose to operate too early, and a good doctor would be advising against that. Lead time bias is the only argument I think isn’t weak, but there also isn’t really enough data on it for us to know for sure. That and the fact that deaths to cancer remains steady instead of going down as diagnosis goes up. I still think it would be better to screen people and monitor them if they test positive rather than wait for symptoms, because so often the symptoms come far too late. I also think more research could be done to reduce false positives and understand what makes some cancer not deadly. It’s severely under funded research because it doesn’t make money and it isn’t glamorous, but it could absolutely save lives
I agree there’s more money in just treating symptoms and EOL care than actually eradicating cancer, but future treatment/eradication is certainly glamorous. Just think of all the celebrities that keep dying from cancer that could come out and say I was saved by X.
Patric Swayze, Steve Jobs, David Bowie and Peewee Herman just to name a few.
Steve Jobs died because he tried homeopathic treatment the second time, so you can take him off that list lol.
Would he go the crazy route is there was an established treatment with 100% success rate though?
How many people you know that drink diluted shit to treat rabies? You just go get your shots like a good boy and live to get bit another day.
I mean, the treatment he had the first time worked, seems to me like it would make sense to do it again, especially with the advances in the treatment since the first time