I can't read the original article, but presumably it treads the same ground as similar articles [1], which in turn generally reference [2]. Past articles talkin

I can't read the original article, but presumably it treads the same ground as similar articles [1], which in turn generally reference [2]. Past articles talking about screening include [3]. Generally supports the view that early screening and detection are largely responsible > Archie Bleyer, a clinical research professor at the Knight Cancer Institute of the Oregon Health & Science University, says the surge in cases of thyroid cancer, as well as kidney cancer, is at least partly a result of “overdiagnosis” due to increased screenings, both for cancer and for other health concerns. The screenings have detected tumors and masses in those organs that “look like cancer, so they’ve got to call it carcinoma,” he explains. But they “would never have been a problem if they were never picked up,” because they typically wouldn’t spread or progress. I think this is rapidly becoming the consensus view, but the subject is complicated. In the long term, these early detections might lead us to the point where they can become more accurate, and we are better able to distinguish between tumors and masses that would progress and those that would not, but I'm not personally very optimistic; there are two many variables -- the same imaging between multiple facets of environment/genetics/diet/metabolism/chance might have wildly different outcomes. [1] https://thehill.com/curing-cancer/4041032-cancer-rates-are-climbing-among-young-people-its-not-clear-why/ https://thehill.com/curing-cancer/4041032-cancer-rates-are-c... [2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41571-022-00672-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41571-022-00672-8 [3] https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/essays/41620/the-dark-side-of-early-diagnosis https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/essays/41620/the-dark-sid...