[somenameforme]

The actual stats on the efficacy of early detection are extremely surprising. This [1] is a random study, among many, about breast cancer screening. Breast cancer mortality rates have been trending downward sharply, and this correlated with a sharp rise in screening. People naturally assumed this was causal, but oddly enough the exact same reduction in mortality has also been observed in people who have not participated in early screening at all. So it seems that generally better treatments are the main reason.

The 'paradox' of genuinely higher survival rates with early detection is explained by the fact that the survival rates are measured from the time of diagnosis. If a person with undiagnosed cancer is diagnosed after 7 years with said cancer, and then dies the following year, then he is considered to have had 1 year of survival. By contrast if somebody is diagnosed at year 1 and then dies 7 years later from the cancer, then they are considered to have 7 years of survival. They lived exactly the same length with cancer, but the survival times after diagnoses are markedly different.

This applies for most cancers. In my prior readings on this topic, the one screening that had a statistically significant effect on life expectancy was a certain type of colonoscopy, but even in that case the effect was quite small, something like 3 months IIRC. I think the overall take away is that outside of healthy living, do what makes you feel most comfortable. Even if they may not be highly effective, screenings would provide some people significant mental comfort. If you're one of them, more power to you. If you're fine without, then that's also great.

[1] - https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180912133536.h...