i disagree because my dad got diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer with 300+ PSA values. This could've been diagnosed when it could still have been cured ( or managed) if they had done a simple blood test to "see how a person is doing" . blood tests are evidence based.
> where the medical system is focused less on charging people money and more on evidence based treatments, blood tests are done to find something specific, not to "see how a person is doing"
I am not sure what insurance you are using in USA but my insurance is super stingy about approving any blood tests that doctor doesn't think are super necessary. All the health influencers i mentioned in earlier comment seem to be paying out of pocket for tests like 'insulin sensitivity' because insurance doesn't pay for those.
I am not saying that "no random blood test has ever uncovered any dangerous disease", which is obviously not true. I am saying that when aggregated, on average many of the screening tests, including yearly bloodwork have more negative effects than positive.
The fact that your father got diagnosed too late is incredibly sad, and I truly feel for you, as that's the disease that took my grandfather too. But that does not offset the fact that if you screen people "yearly" you end up with more unnecessary interventions, painful tests, and potential false positives, and generally bad outcomes than if you don't do it.
You could just as easily find a story about someone who had an unnecessary blood test that revealed something potentially troubling, they went to have a more invasive tests that resulted in them getting hurt from treating what turned out to be a false positive.
Yes thats definitely true. The PSA test i mentioned is one such example of blood test causing over treatment. I think they used to start PSA tests at 40 but now they start much later because it was causing over diagnosis.
For example, there's evidence that on a population level routine screening for prostate cancer may do more harm than good, because it frequently isn't lethal, and the resulting interventions (often for false positives) can have a negative impact themselves.
> The American study found annual screening did not lower the chances of dying of prostate cancer.
> A recent Johns Hopkins University study found surprisingly high rates of hospitalization after prostate biopsies and a 12-fold greater risk of death in those who develop infections.
> "Yet in order to prevent one death from prostate cancer in the 1,000 men screened for PSA, the number of biopsies would double with 154 additional prostate biopsies, and, of 35 additional prostate cancers diagnosed, 12 additional cases of impotence and three additional cases of incontinence would occur. Thus, the harm from routine PSA testing can have a serious effect on the quality of life of patients and provides additional evidence against the use of organised screening for prostate cancer," he says.
yes recommendation now is not to avoid PSA test but to do PSA tests and do something called 'active surveillance' for low grade disease. Much has changed since 2013.
> where the medical system is focused less on charging people money and more on evidence based treatments, blood tests are done to find something specific, not to "see how a person is doing"
I am not sure what insurance you are using in USA but my insurance is super stingy about approving any blood tests that doctor doesn't think are super necessary. All the health influencers i mentioned in earlier comment seem to be paying out of pocket for tests like 'insulin sensitivity' because insurance doesn't pay for those.