You're wrong. Imagine two groups of 1000 men over the age of 50. One group has prostate screening every year. The other group doesn't. According to you the gr

You're wrong. Imagine two groups of 1000 men over the age of 50. One group has prostate screening every year. The other group doesn't. According to you the group that has screening will have better lives, because we'll be detecting cancer earlier and preventing death. That isn't what happens. In the group that doesn't have screening we see 7 men die from prostate cancer, and we see 210 men who die from any cause. But in the group that does have screening we see exactly the same: 7 men die from prostate cancer, and 210 men die from any cause. But in this screening group we also see men having biopsies (160 men), and we see men having unnecessary surgery (which can lead to incontinence or impotence) (20 men). The problem with screening is not that is misses things which are cancer. It's that it hits things which are not cancer but which look a bit like cancer. https://www.harding-center.mpg.de/en/fact-boxes/early-detection-of-cancer/prostate-cancer-early-detection https://www.harding-center.mpg.de/en/fact-boxes/early-detect... What does the man who discovered PSA say about using it to screen populations? "Testing should absolutely not be deployed to screen the entire population of men over the age of 50, the outcome pushed by those who stand to profit. I never dreamed that my discovery four decades ago would lead to such a profit-driven public health disaster. The medical community must confront reality and stop the inappropriate use of P.S.A. screening. Doing so would save billions of dollars and rescue millions of men from unnecessary, debilitating treatments."