Here is a simple way to explain this: Let us say that 1000 men take the PSA test. Only 1% of them, or 10, have cancer, 80% or 8 of which will be detected as true positive. Of the remaining 990 men, 40% or 396 will be detected as false positive. So the probability of having cancer (if tested positive) is 8/(8+396) = 2%.
I think numbers are not that dissimilar for mammograms? It was always emphasized to me that a recall after a mammogram does not mean one has cancer. And that is why I just had two needle biopsies which made my provider tell me that I don't have cancer. Since prognosis is better with early detection I personally did prefer getting some needles stuck into me than just wait and see.
Since one biopsy used ultrasound it was fascinating to watch on a screen taking samples. Hurra for basic science.
A lot of studies have shown that, on average, mammograms do not have more benefits than harm. They are likley to cause overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Also, they tend to classify DCIS as cancer when in fact it should be viewed merely as a risk factor. Here is an article I wrote on this topic a while ago:
Well,you realize that mammogram screening recommendations went back down to 40 years?
Also your opinion that DCIS is not cancer appears to be not mainstream and would need a lot of support from the literature. I've been there and done that.
I am happy with my doctors, they seem to keep up with relevant literature and they tend to cite more articles at me during a routine visit than you do in an opinion piece.
Either you trust the medical system or you don't. Either you trust the cherry-picked studies they show you or you do your own research. It is up to you. If you believe something just because it is mainstream then you may be in the minority on this forum.
An opinion piece is not like a research paper in a journal. So you won't find scores of refrences. The idea of an opinion piece is to make you aware of an alternative opinion. If the opnion piece piques your curiosity, you can easily fine references on the internet if you search using the right key words.
Well, if the minority of this forum does not believe in mainstream science, that indicates there is a problem with this forum.
And yes, I find the uncritical embrace of alternative medicine problematic. Especially since it appears to get endorsed by people who should know better. See no criticism of homeopathy by the author.
It does raise questions about audience capture and trying to monetize substance.
This forum is not about homeopathy. This is the first time somebody mentioned it. Each topic of alternative medicine can be a big distraction whether you agree or not.
This forum is mainly about vaccines and is sponsored by Steve Kirsch who runs Vaccine Safety Research Foundation. It is not about monetizing anything. Steve is too rich to bother about monetizing such piddly stuff. Audience capture is, of course, important because the whole point is to make more people aware of vaccine safety issues. A nominal subscription fee (a few bucks a month) ensures/confirms a degree of reader commitment to the cause.
Well homeopathy is an excellent example why valuing RCTs above biology is not a good idea. Since the opinion piece I am commenting on makes the claim that RCTs are more important than knowledge of basic biology or chemistry it is a totally pertinent argument.
Steve Kirsch has unfortunately gone totally nuts and any association with him is nothing to brag about.
So you are saying this is a purely ideologically motivated website with no interest in science? I do agree that is the impression you manage to give. I think this is really sad.
Hey peeps. This website is about indoctrination and you paying bucks to show your dedication to getting indoctrinated. Vijay says so.
Though I have to admit, I find your honesty in admitting this is all a scam refreshing and rare.
Thank you. I'm gonna steer clear of AI, except for detecting polyps, bit I will brush up on my stats!
Here is a simple way to explain this: Let us say that 1000 men take the PSA test. Only 1% of them, or 10, have cancer, 80% or 8 of which will be detected as true positive. Of the remaining 990 men, 40% or 396 will be detected as false positive. So the probability of having cancer (if tested positive) is 8/(8+396) = 2%.
I think numbers are not that dissimilar for mammograms? It was always emphasized to me that a recall after a mammogram does not mean one has cancer. And that is why I just had two needle biopsies which made my provider tell me that I don't have cancer. Since prognosis is better with early detection I personally did prefer getting some needles stuck into me than just wait and see.
Since one biopsy used ultrasound it was fascinating to watch on a screen taking samples. Hurra for basic science.
A lot of studies have shown that, on average, mammograms do not have more benefits than harm. They are likley to cause overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Also, they tend to classify DCIS as cancer when in fact it should be viewed merely as a risk factor. Here is an article I wrote on this topic a while ago:
https://indiacurrents.com/the-case-against-cancer-screening/
Well,you realize that mammogram screening recommendations went back down to 40 years?
Also your opinion that DCIS is not cancer appears to be not mainstream and would need a lot of support from the literature. I've been there and done that.
I am happy with my doctors, they seem to keep up with relevant literature and they tend to cite more articles at me during a routine visit than you do in an opinion piece.
Either you trust the medical system or you don't. Either you trust the cherry-picked studies they show you or you do your own research. It is up to you. If you believe something just because it is mainstream then you may be in the minority on this forum.
An opinion piece is not like a research paper in a journal. So you won't find scores of refrences. The idea of an opinion piece is to make you aware of an alternative opinion. If the opnion piece piques your curiosity, you can easily fine references on the internet if you search using the right key words.
Well, if the minority of this forum does not believe in mainstream science, that indicates there is a problem with this forum.
And yes, I find the uncritical embrace of alternative medicine problematic. Especially since it appears to get endorsed by people who should know better. See no criticism of homeopathy by the author.
It does raise questions about audience capture and trying to monetize substance.
This forum is not about homeopathy. This is the first time somebody mentioned it. Each topic of alternative medicine can be a big distraction whether you agree or not.
This forum is mainly about vaccines and is sponsored by Steve Kirsch who runs Vaccine Safety Research Foundation. It is not about monetizing anything. Steve is too rich to bother about monetizing such piddly stuff. Audience capture is, of course, important because the whole point is to make more people aware of vaccine safety issues. A nominal subscription fee (a few bucks a month) ensures/confirms a degree of reader commitment to the cause.
Well homeopathy is an excellent example why valuing RCTs above biology is not a good idea. Since the opinion piece I am commenting on makes the claim that RCTs are more important than knowledge of basic biology or chemistry it is a totally pertinent argument.
Steve Kirsch has unfortunately gone totally nuts and any association with him is nothing to brag about.
So you are saying this is a purely ideologically motivated website with no interest in science? I do agree that is the impression you manage to give. I think this is really sad.
Hey peeps. This website is about indoctrination and you paying bucks to show your dedication to getting indoctrinated. Vijay says so.
Though I have to admit, I find your honesty in admitting this is all a scam refreshing and rare.
I just read that Dr. Prasad now claims that this piece was written by ChatGPT, yet he claimed ownership. The scam continues.
Sorry, I keep making mistakes. Commenting using my phone seems to make me prone of that.
It is troubling if the majority on this forum does not believe in mainstream science.