6 ms·

Even assuming a nonzero risk of death via annual checkup (however close to zero that may approach), I'd still be hard-pressed to believe that that causes anywhe

Even assuming a nonzero risk of death via annual checkup (however close to zero that may approach), I'd still be hard-pressed to believe that that causes anywhere near as many deaths as it prevents. For every person who contracts pneumonia in the waiting room and dies(?) there have to be at least two people who get a hypertension diagnosis and go on meds that prevent an early heart attack. Probably a lot more than two.

Retric 3y ago
Hypertension isn’t a fast killer. So it’s not that people should never go to the doctor, just that going every single year doesn’t have any benefit for young healthy people over going every 3 years. And again don’t discount the impact of regular visits reducing the odds someone goes to the doctor with new symptoms. This rash is converting but I’ve got a visit scheduled in a few weeks so I might as well wait etc.
CogitoCogito 3y ago
> For every person who contracts pneumonia in the waiting room and dies(?) there have to be at least two people who get a hypertension diagnosis and go on meds that prevent an early heart attack. Probably a lot more than two. Do you have any evidence for this claim?
- spondylosaurus 3y ago
  Do you have any evidence that primary care visits are killing people, let alone at a higher rate than preventable diseases do? How is that not the far more outrageous claim here?
  - CogitoCogito 3y ago
    > Do you have any evidence that primary care visits are killing people, let alone at a higher rate than preventable diseases do? How is that not the far more outrageous claim here? Shall I take this response to mean that you, in fact, have no evidence for your claims? Instead of being defensive you might consider researching the basis for your beliefs? Besides the defensiveness is unwarranted. I never said or even implied that your beliefs are wrong. I only implied that without evidence, you might consider that scenario.
    - spondylosaurus 3y ago
      I'm not normally a fan of the r/atheism style of debate where people invoke the names of various logical fallacies to make themselves feel smart, but this does seem like a good time to revisit that little concept called the "burden of proof." The initial commenter I responded to made a decidedly outrageous claim that primary care visits kill more people than they help. And I'm starting to think that even acknowledging that claim was a waste of my time, because now I'm being asked to seriously prove that doctors are not recklessly slaughtering patients by asking them to turn and cough once a year.
      - CogitoCogito 3y ago
        Okay so I guess both the poster you responded to as well as you are making unfounded claims? Okay I won’t argue against that. I’m sure this comment thread has had hundred of unfounded claims made supporting various positions. In any case, I guess you are confirming that you in fact don’t have support for the claims you’ve made. > because now I'm being asked to seriously prove that doctors are not recklessly slaughtering patients by asking them to turn and cough once a year. I never said you claimed this. If you would like to bring in debate terminology, you seem to be engaging in a straw man.
      - Retric 3y ago
        I am following actual research, as mentioned in the article. It’s not difficult to test the outcome of annual doctors visits, and shockingly they don’t save lives. You’re seemingly basing your opinion on gut feelings or something.
        spondylosaurus 3y ago
        The article says: > They found that “although general health checks increase the number of new diagnoses, they do not decrease total, cardiovascular-related, or cancer-related morbidity or mortality.” And then gives a single anecdotal example of a biopsy gone wrong that almost (but didn't) result in a patient's death. You made a completely orthogonal claim that annual exams *"cost as many lives as they save," which is extremely dubious on the face of it and not supported by the very research you're claiming to cite.

Retric 3y ago

Hypertension isn’t a fast killer. So it’s not that people should never go to the doctor, just that going every single year doesn’t have any benefit for young healthy people over going every 3 years. And again don’t discount the impact of regular visits reducing the odds someone goes to the doctor with new symptoms. This rash is converting but I’ve got a visit scheduled in a few weeks so I might as well wait etc.

CogitoCogito 3y ago

> For every person who contracts pneumonia in the waiting room and dies(?) there have to be at least two people who get a hypertension diagnosis and go on meds that prevent an early heart attack. Probably a lot more than two. Do you have any evidence for this claim?

spondylosaurus 3y ago
Do you have any evidence that primary care visits are killing people, let alone at a higher rate than preventable diseases do? How is that not the far more outrageous claim here?
- CogitoCogito 3y ago
  > Do you have any evidence that primary care visits are killing people, let alone at a higher rate than preventable diseases do? How is that not the far more outrageous claim here? Shall I take this response to mean that you, in fact, have no evidence for your claims? Instead of being defensive you might consider researching the basis for your beliefs? Besides the defensiveness is unwarranted. I never said or even implied that your beliefs are wrong. I only implied that without evidence, you might consider that scenario.
  - spondylosaurus 3y ago
    I'm not normally a fan of the r/atheism style of debate where people invoke the names of various logical fallacies to make themselves feel smart, but this does seem like a good time to revisit that little concept called the "burden of proof." The initial commenter I responded to made a decidedly outrageous claim that primary care visits kill more people than they help. And I'm starting to think that even acknowledging that claim was a waste of my time, because now I'm being asked to seriously prove that doctors are not recklessly slaughtering patients by asking them to turn and cough once a year.
    - CogitoCogito 3y ago
      Okay so I guess both the poster you responded to as well as you are making unfounded claims? Okay I won’t argue against that. I’m sure this comment thread has had hundred of unfounded claims made supporting various positions. In any case, I guess you are confirming that you in fact don’t have support for the claims you’ve made. > because now I'm being asked to seriously prove that doctors are not recklessly slaughtering patients by asking them to turn and cough once a year. I never said you claimed this. If you would like to bring in debate terminology, you seem to be engaging in a straw man.
    - Retric 3y ago
      I am following actual research, as mentioned in the article. It’s not difficult to test the outcome of annual doctors visits, and shockingly they don’t save lives. You’re seemingly basing your opinion on gut feelings or something.
      - spondylosaurus 3y ago
        The article says: > They found that “although general health checks increase the number of new diagnoses, they do not decrease total, cardiovascular-related, or cancer-related morbidity or mortality.” And then gives a single anecdotal example of a biopsy gone wrong that almost (but didn't) result in a patient's death. You made a completely orthogonal claim that annual exams *"cost as many lives as they save," which is extremely dubious on the face of it and not supported by the very research you're claiming to cite.