> As I read it, the main objection is a high level of false
> positives in testing.
It's not just that, it's that because of the emphasis on screening, people who get screened and test positive Want To Do Something About It. This seems Natural. But this is one of those diseases that they're far better at detecting than treating; and it's a very slow-growing type of cancer that could take decades to kill you. And some of the treatments are highly invasive, have huge side-effects, and aren't particularly successful all the time.
> That is not a valid reason for abandoning testing, but
> rather for not deciding on treatment based on a single
> test alone.
Good luck with that.
Doctor: You Have Cancer
Patient: What should "we" do about that?
Doctor: Oh I don't know, maybe give it a few decades and see what happens. Or how about buy a motorcycle, take up smoking, and stop worrying?
Right.
---
What if there was a test that could say: you're mostly likely going to die in a car accident. We're not sure when, or under what circumstances, and there's probably nothing you can do to prevent it from happening. But: if you never drive in a vehicle again, you might die of lung cancer instead.
Would you take that test?
/jordan