> it'd be nice to have better treatment options. No disagreement with you there. By "perfect screening" I assumed a "perfect" patient set where problems brough

> it'd be nice to have better treatment options. No disagreement with you there. By "perfect screening" I assumed a "perfect" patient set where problems brought up at annual checkups lead directly to tests which lead to detection, but perhaps that's a naïve assumption to the point of uselessness. Still, I think it's easy to write off screening advances as skewing the data set vs. actually saving lives, when they do in fact help people that otherwise could have been much sicker.