This is what one victim claims:
Mr Oakley said he was first made aware of a potential problem about two months ago when blood tests revealed “cells that shouldn’t be there”, which he says indicate he has early stages of the disease.He said: “It’s an early sign of cancer. The best I could actually get was that if we catch it early enough it is treatable.
Not sure what kind of cancer he’s talking about.
Related posts:
- USA Today op-ed: Not all cancer screening tests lead to better treatment
- Ovarian cancer
- Screening for ovarian cancer redux
- "The distinction between survival and mortality cuts to the heart of the screening debate"
- "The best test isn’t necessarily the one that finds the most cancer"
- How does cancer screening cause harm?
- Op-ed: Not all screening tests lead to early, better treatment
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 2 comments }
A happened then B happened. Therefore, A caused B. This is a logical impasse I have been unable to educate many a patient around. In my limited experience, less than 10% of people understand that just because two things occured consecutively in time doesn’t mean they are related in consequence.
“Post hoc ergo propter hoc.”
Comments on this entry are closed.