This blind faith in cancer screening is an example of how ideas about human biology and behaviour can persist among people — including scientists — even though the scientific evidence shows the concepts to be false. “Scientists think they’re too objective to believe in something as folklore-ish as a myth,” says Nicholas Spitzer, director of the Kavli Institute for Brain and Mind at the University of California, San Diego. Yet they do.
‘individuals would rather be told to get a quick test every few years than be told to eat well and exercise to prevent cancer’
Exchanging old myths for new!
I have yet to see empirical evidence that proves selective diet, as opposed to total calorie intake, has any affect on death rate from cancer.
“…
….yep, take a good look at the Climate Change INDUSTRY….. (MYTH…writ large)
oops.
S/B: ..These myths often blossom from a seed of a fact — early detection does save lives for some cancers — and thrive on human desires or anxieties, such as a fear of death. But they can do harm by, for instance, driving people to pursue unnecessary treatment or spend money on unproven products. They can also derail or forestall promising research by distracting scientists or monopolizing funding. And dispelling them is tricky….
I’m just glad we have a Minister of Science in Canada that will set us on the right path in this regard. (sarc)
This is why the only cancer screening tests I ever recommended were Pap smears for the ladies, breast self-exam, screening mammography within a select group and screening colonoscopies for the over fifty crowd, barring any other indications. Cancer is a process with huge heterogeneity within the diseases it encompasses. The underlying pathology is most likely a failure of the immune system with a local manifestation of disease which may or may not progress rapidly depending on a variety of factors. But “cancer” is like “radiation”. You only have to say it for some nits to run screaming out of the room. Life is about playing the odds. People are very reluctant to accept that. And they are even more reluctant to accept the prospect that the odds of an adverse outcome may be higher with an intervention than with the disease itself. “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds” — as relevant today (if not more so) than it was when first written in the early nineteenth century.
It is interesting to read this analysis. I came to the same conclusion on my own years ago just by listening to my instinct . Many medical test are highly invasive and carry risks . To me the idea of radiating tissue every year to see if there is cancer makes no sense. If you radiate an area enough you are increasing the risk developing cancer . I have adopted the personal philosophy of listening to my body and it has served me well to this point in my life.
If you listen to the warning that come with most prescription medications taking you chances is probably as good a gamble as anything. There are some conditions that require prescription medication.
If you remove a non life threatening cancer did you save that person’s life?
If not for screening tests my cancer would not have been detected in time to save me through treatment. Men, bend over. There are no guarantees in life but ignorance will kill you sooner than the occasional indignity.
The thing is, the “flaw” is that death rates don’t drop, not that some people aren’t saved through screening. What we’re really saying is that the rate stays the same but the individuals who die change. From a public health perspective it’s a wash but from an individual perspective it can be the difference between life and death. It’s only a question of which ones die.
There are very potent materials and foodstuffs that can cause cancer. A normally rare form of throat cancer
was found to be very common in some limited areas of China. It was eventually traced to preserved cabbage
which was somewhat unique in its preparation and formed a major part of the diet of those people affected.
Various genetic quirks also tend to show there is no “one size fits all” when it comes to the complex fight
cancer wages against us.
Related: Tim Ball on why climate change can’t be successfully argued on the basis of science. For one, it didn’t start in science.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/19/the-recent-senate-climate-hearing-failed-because-it-continues-to-miss-the-point/
“…It’s only a question of which ones die.”
Every one dies. It’s a question of when, where, and how each dies. And all the screening and testing only answers those questions in some cases, and in some of those cases the answers given are untrue.
I have read in many sources that I consider reliable that the only thing that can truly defeat and heal cancer is our God-given immune system, and that in the average human, this immune system actually does defeat cancerous cells a dozen or more times every year. It’s ironic that two of the more successful man-made treatments, namely chemo and radiation, basically destroy the patient’s immune system in the process.
With regards to early detection, the definition of “cured” for cancer is that the patient is still alive five years after detection. When the cancer is detected early, the chances of the patient being alive five years later are automatically increased.
My dad died of cancer. By the time doctors decided that exploratory surgery was required to confirm the diagnosis, the surgeon discovered that the cancer was so far advanced that it was “inoperable” and just sewed him up again. Dad died about a month later. Apparently if the cancer had been “operable”, Dad could have expected to live another year. I asked the doctor when they would have had to operate to have been successful, I was told “about a year ago”.
Things that make you go “hmmmmm”
“Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds” — as relevant today (if not more so) than it was when first written in the early nineteenth century.
Of course it is. Today, we have the greatest fooling machine ever invented, the fraud artist’s wet dream come true and the most awesome self-deception device of all times – the internet.
bend over
Is it tax time again already?
The only cancer screening I recommend is for bowel cancer as there’s clear evidence that detection of early cancers increases lifespan. I haven’t looked at the morbidity of colonoscopies, but there’s about a 1/1000 to 1/5000 chance of bowel perforation during the process which can potentially be fatal.
When it comes to cervical cancer, it seems that Canada is behind the US as there it’s recommended that women don’t start getting paps till age 25 as there are far too many false positive paps under that age which can result in significant morbidity for “precancerous” lesions that disappear when women get older. I’ve had a very hard time in convincing younger women to not bother with paps as they seem to feel it’s something they should be doing regularly.
WRT breast cancer, every time I have a male patient asking me about PSA screening, I tell them it’s as good for improving lifespan as mammography is for breast cancer: ie not very helpfull at all. In my experience, 90% of suspicious lesions showing up on mammography turn out to be nothing at all and one has patients who are worried until the time that they get back the results of their biopsy.
Screening for thyroid cancer is certainly indicated in select cases and every case of thyroid cancer I’ve diagnosed has been by feeling a patients thyroid – far cheaper than ultrasound. Then again, some thyroid cancers such as papillary thyroid carcinoma are so slow growing that people will die of something else before their thyroid cancer.
Basically, the cancer screening tests we have suck but trying to convince patients of that is a losing proposition.
It’s always tax time.
I am happy that you and DrD drop by here.