2 ms·

Your analysis is contradicted by the evidence presented in the article. > One study took 1,600 men with low-risk prostate cancer in the U.K. and randomly assig

Your analysis is contradicted by the evidence presented in the article. > One study took 1,600 men with low-risk prostate cancer in the U.K. and randomly assigned them to get surgery, radiation or active surveillance. Fifteen years later, the researchers found that mortality rates for all the men were low, and similar for each group no matter which approach they took, according to the study which was published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine. If aggressive treatment regularly saved lives the healthiest 35% of the population, one would probably see a noticeable difference in mortality between the randomized groups. Maybe it would be possible to find flaws in the study, or an interpretation of the results that would align with your analysis, but it seems like you haven't engaged with the evidence at all.

Someone 3y ago
> If aggressive treatment regularly saved lives the healthiest 35% of the population, one would probably see a noticeable difference in mortality between the randomized groups. It isn’t different from no treatment according to that statistic, but it does save lives. Unfortunately, it also kills about the same number of men. It also, for thousands, decreases quality of life. Unnecessary operations can have side effects and there are scares on early false positives. Even the visits for checkups decrease quality of life a bit, and you’ve to do millions of those to save a life. The problem is that, once the word ‘cancer’ has fallen, people categorize dying and side effects such as erectile dysfunction as the cancer’s fault and surviving as being thanks to medicine. So, on parties, they’ll say “doctors saved my life” and “cancer killed my brother”