[refurb]

Yeah, it's pretty complicated.

I'm not that surprised death rates were similar. Colonoscopies will catch pre-cancerous masses like polyps, so I can see the cancer rate being lower.

But if diagnosed with cancer, treatments are quite good for colorectal cancer, so you may not see that much of a difference in death rate on a 10 year horizon.

[eecc]

Well then the title is indeed misleading. It's not the colonoscopy that's failing to reduce cancer death rates, treatments are. Indeed the title should have been: with colon cancer deaths unchanged, screening and pre-malignant treatments are ever more important.

[pessimizer]

This is nonsensical. Any number of things are failing to reduce cancer death rates, including professional football and jelly donuts. This study is about colonoscopies also failing to reduce cancer death rates.

Changing the title to Don't Worry About Colon Cancer Death Rates, Just Continue To Do What You're Told would not have been better or more accurate.

[eecc]

> This is nonsensical.

Can you please keep it civil and avoid devolving into insults? I don't spend my time online to get treated like a fool. Now please restrain yourself from trolling even further and say "well, then don't say foolish things" because I'd flag you.

If you bothered reading the article, a paragraph reads that this particular form of screening did have an impact. Just not as significant as the community thought.

The study is about _one particular form of screening_ that might might have been oversold. Perfectly consistent with the parent observation and my own: screening is significant, curing cancer isn't as easy as avoiding it altogether.

Now, if you have something constructive to add please do so. Otherwise, please shut up and move on to some Reddit sub.

[refurb]

I think that would be editorialized.

What would be more accurate is to say the title is incomplete. Te details matter.

If the claim was "Voluntary colonoscopy screening does not reduce the risk of death over a 10 year period" it would likely be more accurate and at least calls out the "voluntary" nature of the patients examines and the limited time span of the analysis.

No study is ever perfect and everyone has limitations. You usually learn more by investigating the limitations than poking holes in the conclusions.