3 ms·

The article says: > They found that “although general health checks increase the number of new diagnoses, they do not decrease total, cardiovascular-related, o

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
> cost as many lives as they save That’s literally what failing to reduce total mortality means. You can’t statistically separate saving 0 lives and costing 0 lives with saving 5 lives and costing 5 lives.
- spondylosaurus 3y ago
  No it does not lol. Failing to reduce mortality is not remotely the same thing as actually increasing mortality. "Cost as many lives as they save" means the physician visits are actively driving deaths that would otherwise would not occur if those people had not visited their doctor (which is also what you said, like, two comments ago). "Failing to reduce total mortality" means that physician visits did not save people who already had medical conditions that were going to kill them.
  - Retric 3y ago
    Ahh, taking a moment to bask in the ignorance. If nothing else car accidents are going to kill some of them. You’re arguing that billions of doctors visits for hundreds of millions of people save save exactly 0 lives and cost exactly 0 lives. That seems unlikely, but even still 0 = 0.
  - CogitoCogito 3y ago
    > "Cost as many lives as they save" means the physician visits are actively driving deaths that would otherwise would not occur if those people had not visited their doctor (which is also what you said, like, two comments ago). Unless there is spare capacity, a bunch of young, healthy people going to a the doctor means that older, unhealthy people are unable to. Is it really that hard to imagine a scenario in which more people visiting the physician could lead to more deaths occurring?

Retric 3y ago

> cost as many lives as they save That’s literally what failing to reduce total mortality means. You can’t statistically separate saving 0 lives and costing 0 lives with saving 5 lives and costing 5 lives.

spondylosaurus 3y ago
No it does not lol. Failing to reduce mortality is not remotely the same thing as actually increasing mortality. "Cost as many lives as they save" means the physician visits are actively driving deaths that would otherwise would not occur if those people had not visited their doctor (which is also what you said, like, two comments ago). "Failing to reduce total mortality" means that physician visits did not save people who already had medical conditions that were going to kill them.
- Retric 3y ago
  Ahh, taking a moment to bask in the ignorance. If nothing else car accidents are going to kill some of them. You’re arguing that billions of doctors visits for hundreds of millions of people save save exactly 0 lives and cost exactly 0 lives. That seems unlikely, but even still 0 = 0.
- CogitoCogito 3y ago
  > "Cost as many lives as they save" means the physician visits are actively driving deaths that would otherwise would not occur if those people had not visited their doctor (which is also what you said, like, two comments ago). Unless there is spare capacity, a bunch of young, healthy people going to a the doctor means that older, unhealthy people are unable to. Is it really that hard to imagine a scenario in which more people visiting the physician could lead to more deaths occurring?