[xp84]

I am still disturbed by this though. The alternative I see to "get screenings" is "get no screenings." If you're one of the ones who actually do have an aggressive cancer, and you don't find out about it until it's like Stage Four, then you just definitely die, badly and soon. You, specifically, might have been helped if screened when you had a little baby tumor.

So, while I see the "statistically" part, asking everyone to get zero screenings until you start coughing up blood (or whatever happens when the cancer starts showing very obvious signs)... it just seems weird on the individual level. Nobody knows (nor can they know) if you're the person who would be cured with treatment, or if you're the person whose outcome wouldn't have changed a bit with treatment (for better or for worse). That question matters individually, and while "statistically you're slightly more likely to be in the second group" according to these studies, that doesn't make me feel great about just declining all screenings.

[vc8f6vVV]

> You, specifically, might have been helped if screened when you had a little baby tumor.

Or your screening might have caused that tumor? X-rays are not harmless and they can cause cancer. Other screenings have their respective complications. Aren't you disturbed by a thought that maybe you wouldn't have any cancer if not for screening? Or you would have a healthy colon if not for the intern who perforated it during colonoscopy?