No, the potential harm comes from follow-up tests. That's why screening strategies are designed by professionals. It's a pretty complex field, and all the people here fielding their opinions on how we should proceed about tests don't have a single idea about the implications of their theories.
What a ridiculous statement to make. No wonder the US is in the state it is in. Lets let the ignorant and uninformed decide on policy rather than the scientific community and experts. What could possibly go wrong?
Honestly, you don't have access to the necessary data to make rational decisions. That's not gatekeeping, it's logic. I don't have access to it either, although I'm indeed a healthcare pro. Screening strategies are a hyperspecialized domain and only experts somewhat understand what they're doing. It's just like making theories about what the CERN guys should be doing while not having passed physics 101 with no access to experimental data. That's why I'm just saying: you're certainly allowed to question, but you certainly can't make up assertions either.
Get treated for the cancer you will now survive because you just caught early. The answer is so obvious I think I may have misunderstood what you mean here.
The fact that this answer is so obvious to you means you have to read up on diagnostic test performance and how screening works, because it's in fact not obvious at all. I mean that in the nicest way possible. Those companies offering expensive screening are not what they seem. Whether their offering is useful or whether they're just swindling you is a question that needs lots of time, money and sweat to answer.
