3 ms·

Are you claiming that centuries of medical science have supported the idea of the annual physical? Honestly I’m having trouble following your point. The articl

Are you claiming that centuries of medical science have supported the idea of the annual physical? Honestly I’m having trouble following your point. The article is pretty clear in its arguments. Which do you find so unreasonable? Could you quote to me a part of the article contradicted by centuries of science?

arisAlexis 3y ago
Just 2 simple things:a) the article under annual checkup is a Mashup pop science.b) annual exams and preemptive medicine are worth it, all medical science is based on either preempt and treat early or late. Now if you think that doing annual exams is harmful and catching diseases early is harmful and everyone believes it OK, humanity believed earth is flat for a long time. Doctors believed covid is nothing, you can find videos of doctors saying that early etc. Skip doctor, go only when you have pain brother.
- CogitoCogito 3y ago
  I asked you to quote something from the article that you disagree with. Given it’s apparently so bad, this should not be difficult. Edit: Also maybe refrain from irrelevant nonsense like the following: > Now if you think that doing annual exams is harmful and catching diseases early is harmful and everyone believes it OK, humanity believed earth is flat for a long time. Doctors believed covid is nothing, you can find videos of doctors saying that early etc. Skip doctor, go only when you have pain brother.
  - arisAlexis 3y ago
    I'll be shallow and say this. Anyone that thinks that it's better to find cancer late than early or diabetes or blood pressure needs a head examination.
    - CogitoCogito 3y ago
      > I'll be shallow and say this. Anyone that thinks that it's better to find cancer late than early or diabetes or blood pressure needs a head examination. I'll be shallow and say this: I don't think you remotely understand what the article is saying. Let's make it simple and only consider a single of the article's points: there are not enough primary care physicians to provide yearly checkups for everyone. In this scenario, providing yearly checkups to someone healthy in their thirties is done at the cost of _not_ doing it for someone else. If that person is at a higher risk for cancer or diabetes, then promoting annual checkups for everyone can easily make it _harder_ to find cancer early since we're not focusing on high risk people. Of course there are many more points to the article (e.g. unnecessary treatment), but that single point is enough to make it quite obvious that the article is not entirely without merit. What I find incredible is that you keep repeating that the article is terrible yet even after repeated questioning you are unwilling (or unable) to actually quote any single aspect that you take issue with.
      - arisAlexis 3y ago
        Yes the article is bs because your argument is that there aren't many physicians and maybe the insurance companies complain for costs and this is humongous vastly different than prevention and erly screening is bad. And the article doesn't differentiate. No more discussion, going to do my annual blood exam. You skip it.
        CogitoCogito 3y ago
        > Yes the article is bs because your argument is that there aren't many physicians and maybe the insurance companies complain for costs and this is humongous vastly different than prevention and erly screening is bad. And the article doesn't differentiate. No more discussion, going to do my annual blood exam. You skip it. This might be the most incoherent post you've made so far. Honestly, what are you even talking about? The article never once made an argument against screening. And the number of physicians and the cost of visiting them is extremely important for any analysis of the system. But yes maybe you're right that there should be no more discussion. You have after all not actually pointed out a single paragraph or sentence from the article that you claim is wrong. You haven't even really made any sort of argument. You've just repeated that the article and the research are wrong without providing any supporting explanation.

arisAlexis 3y ago

Just 2 simple things:a) the article under annual checkup is a Mashup pop science.b) annual exams and preemptive medicine are worth it, all medical science is based on either preempt and treat early or late. Now if you think that doing annual exams is harmful and catching diseases early is harmful and everyone believes it OK, humanity believed earth is flat for a long time. Doctors believed covid is nothing, you can find videos of doctors saying that early etc. Skip doctor, go only when you have pain brother.

CogitoCogito 3y ago
I asked you to quote something from the article that you disagree with. Given it’s apparently so bad, this should not be difficult. Edit: Also maybe refrain from irrelevant nonsense like the following: > Now if you think that doing annual exams is harmful and catching diseases early is harmful and everyone believes it OK, humanity believed earth is flat for a long time. Doctors believed covid is nothing, you can find videos of doctors saying that early etc. Skip doctor, go only when you have pain brother.
- arisAlexis 3y ago
  I'll be shallow and say this. Anyone that thinks that it's better to find cancer late than early or diabetes or blood pressure needs a head examination.
  - CogitoCogito 3y ago
    > I'll be shallow and say this. Anyone that thinks that it's better to find cancer late than early or diabetes or blood pressure needs a head examination. I'll be shallow and say this: I don't think you remotely understand what the article is saying. Let's make it simple and only consider a single of the article's points: there are not enough primary care physicians to provide yearly checkups for everyone. In this scenario, providing yearly checkups to someone healthy in their thirties is done at the cost of _not_ doing it for someone else. If that person is at a higher risk for cancer or diabetes, then promoting annual checkups for everyone can easily make it _harder_ to find cancer early since we're not focusing on high risk people. Of course there are many more points to the article (e.g. unnecessary treatment), but that single point is enough to make it quite obvious that the article is not entirely without merit. What I find incredible is that you keep repeating that the article is terrible yet even after repeated questioning you are unwilling (or unable) to actually quote any single aspect that you take issue with.
    - arisAlexis 3y ago
      Yes the article is bs because your argument is that there aren't many physicians and maybe the insurance companies complain for costs and this is humongous vastly different than prevention and erly screening is bad. And the article doesn't differentiate. No more discussion, going to do my annual blood exam. You skip it.
      - CogitoCogito 3y ago
        > Yes the article is bs because your argument is that there aren't many physicians and maybe the insurance companies complain for costs and this is humongous vastly different than prevention and erly screening is bad. And the article doesn't differentiate. No more discussion, going to do my annual blood exam. You skip it. This might be the most incoherent post you've made so far. Honestly, what are you even talking about? The article never once made an argument against screening. And the number of physicians and the cost of visiting them is extremely important for any analysis of the system. But yes maybe you're right that there should be no more discussion. You have after all not actually pointed out a single paragraph or sentence from the article that you claim is wrong. You haven't even really made any sort of argument. You've just repeated that the article and the research are wrong without providing any supporting explanation.