I wish I could upvote your comment several times over. One of the commonest fallacies that we carry over from everyday life, over to chronic disease is that ea

I wish I could upvote your comment several times over. One of the commonest fallacies that we carry over from everyday life, over to chronic disease is that early detection followed by intervention will reduce the burden/discomfort/work in the future. We are probably wired for this fallacy, for example in the prehistoric era: detect an impending attack by an invading enemy would have resulted in better survival. Some non-main stream cancer practitioners postulate that the only reason cancer survival rates seem to have improved over the years is because of earlier detection. A cancer survivor is broadly defined as someone who lives 5 years after detection of the cancer. So in the distance past when detection methods were relatively primitive cancer was detected at the later stages and the patient died quickly there after. Now they live longer after they have been detected because it was detected relatively earlier. The better survival rate is attributed to the treatment regiment, which is not the case. It is just that the window of time between detection of cancer and death of patient has increased. Anyways, none of this is news to people are understand human nature, there is quite a bit of 'superstition' even in science and medicine.