3 ms·

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 fr

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.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - arisAlexis 3y ago
        This is insane and your ego too. "The article never once made an argument against screening" How do you start screening without an annual physical? You book doodle appointments from things you saw on Wikipedia? I just can't, stop. Calm.
        CogitoCogito 3y ago
        > How do you start screening without an annual physical? You book doodle appointments from things you saw on Wikipedia? I just can't, stop. Calm. So basically your point here is that you claim it is impossible to convey information about standard screening schedules without doing an annual physical? I mean you understand that's a ridiculous claim right? It could be done by a doctor over the phone, or a nurse, or another system. Your point is totally illogical. Why does it need to be yearly? Why not every other year? Why not every 6 months. Even taking your ridiculous claim as fact, it doesn't imply anything about how often these physical exams need to occur. > This is insane and your ego too. My ego? You've claimed over and over how bad the article is, yet you haven't pointed out any reasoning supporting your statement. You are the one with an enormous ego. You seem totally incapable of accepting that maybe just maybe you could possibly be wrong. Learn a little humility.

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.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - arisAlexis 3y ago
      This is insane and your ego too. "The article never once made an argument against screening" How do you start screening without an annual physical? You book doodle appointments from things you saw on Wikipedia? I just can't, stop. Calm.
      - CogitoCogito 3y ago
        > How do you start screening without an annual physical? You book doodle appointments from things you saw on Wikipedia? I just can't, stop. Calm. So basically your point here is that you claim it is impossible to convey information about standard screening schedules without doing an annual physical? I mean you understand that's a ridiculous claim right? It could be done by a doctor over the phone, or a nurse, or another system. Your point is totally illogical. Why does it need to be yearly? Why not every other year? Why not every 6 months. Even taking your ridiculous claim as fact, it doesn't imply anything about how often these physical exams need to occur. > This is insane and your ego too. My ego? You've claimed over and over how bad the article is, yet you haven't pointed out any reasoning supporting your statement. You are the one with an enormous ego. You seem totally incapable of accepting that maybe just maybe you could possibly be wrong. Learn a little humility.