Comment by mgraczyk
12 days ago
> You're saying it as if detection somehow cures cancer, it doesn't.
No, I didn't say the detector would cause cancer to be cured. I said fewer people would die with no downsides. If treatment is sometimes harmful then the detector also fixes that, you'd never treat people without cancer
No, the detector doesn't fix that, that problem is not treating people without cancer. The problem is treating people with cancer that won't kill or harm them during their lifetime. In this case even a low risk treatment becomes harmful, let alone cancer treatments.
Your claim is equivalent to claiming that most cancer treatment is net harmful btw
and this is obviously false, especially for cancers detected earlier
Whether treatment is net harmful or not depends on the level of the risk with no treatment. If you apply treatment with 15% chance of severe side effects to a tumor that will kill the patient with 50% chance in the next five years, of course it's net positive. If you apply it to a first-stage cancer that has 10% chance of progressing to the second stage, the very same treatment will be net harmful.
So no, most cancer treatments aren't net harmful now, but they likely will be in a world where your programme is implemented. Even something as "simple" as biopsy has mortality rates far from zero. Applying it at scale may not have the effect you expect. And surgeries and chemo are much worse.
2 replies →
So if this is true, it seems that we must accept that many people will die of cancer we could have detected and cured with frequent scans, because doing frequent scans will overall cause more harm to people who didn't need treatment. So the overall death/harm rate would be worst with more frequent scans?
Isn't that then just a problem with the scan and diagnosis? With more frequent scans it seems highly unlikely that we wouldn't improve this process and end up in a better place.