the obvious answer is additional testing to reduce the likelihood of a false positive -- if additional tests are invasive those tests can be weighed on the balance of risk just the same. i think the real problem is cost, we cant afford/manage to do that correctly currently, which is exactly what improved non invasive tests could enable and disrupt this reactionary approach forever
> if additional tests are invasive those tests can be weighed on the balance of risk just the same
So let's say you have an extremely safe test. Let's use the "mail your poop to a lab" test for colon cancer as an example.
If that test (regardless of its accuracy) comes back with a positive, you're going to do one of two things: A) order a colonoscopy, perhaps with biopsy, to confirm the presence of a malignant tumor; B) start treatment immediately (if you trust the initial test enough).
So that brings you back to square one: you shouldn't do the test, regardless of the safety, if the math works out to make it riskier (due to false positives and unnecessary tests/treatment).
i think i agree about "if the math works out" -- but thats the hard question isnt it? isnt the accuracy of the poop test significant? if 2 or 3 poop tests increase our confidence in the result it changes the risk:benefit calculation for the colonoscopy or treatment. thats an easy win. but even if it did not, is the result from the (preventative) poop test less valid data than a patient complaining of pain? so generally speaking i agree we dont want to enable a path to risky procedures based on dubious evidence, but i think overall we are presently operating with a dearth of information (waiting for symptoms) and the math itself improves by having more proactive testing (information) in the first place
