When Knowing Less Is More: On Cancer Screening

Source: https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/when-knowing-less-is-more-on-cancer

= = = 

This essay draws extensively on H. Gilbert Welch’s Should I be tested for cancer?: maybe not and here’s why (University of California Press, 2004).

Welch, a physician and researcher at Dartmouth Medical School, synthesized decades of autopsy studies, randomized trials, and clinical observations to challenge conventional wisdom about cancer screening.

The evidence, statistics, and patient cases presented here come from his work. The argument—that finding cancer can harm more than help—is his. What follows is an examination of that counterintuitive claim and the data supporting it.

 

> "Most doctors have stumbled onto cancers having nothing to do with their patients’ initial complaints. Most know the resulting quandary: lethal cancer or innocuous one? Remove the kidney or watch it? Most feel trapped by the finding, compelled to act. Many wonder if their action won’t create as many problems as it solves. Many suspect the patient might have been better off never being tested.

This suspicion contradicts everything we’ve been taught to believe about early detection. Finding cancer early saves lives. Anyone who dies of undetected cancer would have been saved by screening. More testing equals better medicine. These principles feel self-evident, beyond question.

They are wrong."

 

= = = 

Better in my view is to learn to read one's own body.

 

It tells you when you need a sleep. It tells you when you need a drink of water. It tells you when you need a rest, and to take it easy. It tells you when you need a big dose of Vit C. Tells you when you need to get out into the sun.

 

The body will heal if it is given the right tools and support.

 

We have lost sight of nature. Nature is everything. A tree sheds it leaves in the fall. We get the flu at the appropriate time. We should listen to the nature within us. We are nature after all.

 

 

6 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

 

 

Thanks.  I recommend everybody whose doctor is recommending a biopsy to 'screen/diagnose' his cancer condition to watch this 1,5 minute clip.  Once again a 'recommended'  medical intervention that worsens the problem...

7 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

 

The reality is that in this internet age you can find all kind of different opinions on every matter. Just google or use an AI program and you will find that for everything in this world there are opposite opinions, opposite evidence and everyone contradicting what has been known so far. You can see that for example with the well known Dr. Berg who has solutions to solve every disease in this world with his videos most of us have seen somewhere. And Dr. Berg is just a Chiropractic  who claims to know everything by posting videos about cancer, prostate issues, ED, heart issues and so on. I would not trust any of such online advise giving "experts" . You can see such advisers every day on Tiktok, X, Facebook, Youtube, IG.

49 minutes ago, msbkk said:

The reality is that in this internet age you can find all kind of different opinions on every matter. Just google or use an AI program and you will find that for everything in this world there are opposite opinions, opposite evidence and everyone contradicting what has been known so far. You can see that for example with the well known Dr. Berg who has solutions to solve every disease in this world with his videos most of us have seen somewhere. And Dr. Berg is just a Chiropractic  who claims to know everything by posting videos about cancer, prostate issues, ED, heart issues and so on. I would not trust any of such online advise giving "experts" . You can see such advisers every day on Tiktok, X, Facebook, Youtube, IG.

Agree & disagree, as on the flip side of that, you got people like Fauci on MSM spreading out right lies, while others, spreading facts & warnings, being censored ... IMHO

 

'safe & effective'

'get the shot, prevents getting covid'

get the shot, prevents spreading covid'

 

.... nuff said

 

People need to use common sense once in a while, stop blindly follow advice with due diligence on their part.

 

Berg is way out there sometime, other times, can be spot on.  Don't view his content any more, though did provide some good Keto info.

 

Dr Ken Berry is much better, although he has his moments also.  At least he stopped calling all seed oil poison, as research has proven that to totally false, and actually the opposite,  some being a healthier choice than some 'natural fats'

8 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

Thanks.  I recommend everybody whose doctor is recommending a biopsy to 'screen/diagnose' his cancer condition to watch this 1,5 minute clip.  Once again a 'recommended'  medical intervention that worsens the problem...

 

Indeed. I think it was @Stiddle Mump who once said that tumors were enclosed environments built by the body to contain the nefarious elements (I'm paraphrasing in layman terms).

6 hours ago, KhunLA said:

People need to use common sense once in a while, stop blindly follow advice with due diligence on their part.

 

100% this.

8 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

Thanks.  I recommend everybody whose doctor is recommending a biopsy to 'screen/diagnose' his cancer condition to watch this 1,5 minute clip.  Once again a 'recommended'  medical intervention that worsens the problem...

What are your medical qualifications to advise anyone.......?    🤫

18 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Dr Ken Berry is much better, although he has his moments also.  At least he stopped calling all seed oil poison, as research has proven that to totally false, and actually the opposite,  some being a healthier choice than some 'natural fats'

 

There are studies on everything that are the complete opposite of other studies.

 

Thousands of studies show seed oils are toxic.

Thousands of studies show seed oils are good for you.

 

Same for butter causes heart disease, meat causes cancer.

 

This is because some studies have integrity and other studies are paid for by competing interest groups or some studies are just crappy badly done studies. Or it's all part of a vast conspiracy to keep everyone confused. 

 

 

6 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

 

There are studies on everything that are the complete opposite of other studies.

 

Thousands of studies show seed oils are toxic.

Thousands of studies show seed oils are good for you.

 

Same for butter causes heart disease, meat causes cancer.

 

This is because some studies have integrity and other studies are paid for by competing interest groups or some studies are just crappy badly done studies. Or it's all part of a vast conspiracy to keep everyone confused. 

That's why you do a meta analysis of studies, preferably not funded with conflict of interest concerns, and long random trial studies, instead of observational, industry funded studies.

 

I like this guy ... 

 

 

On 11/17/2025 at 4:40 AM, Red Phoenix said:

> "Most doctors have stumbled onto cancers having nothing to do with their patients’ initial complaints. Most know the resulting quandary: lethal cancer or innocuous one? Remove the kidney or watch it? Most feel trapped by the finding, compelled to act. Many wonder if their action won’t create as many problems as it solves. Many suspect the patient might have been better off never being tested.

This suspicion contradicts everything we’ve been taught to believe about early detection. Finding cancer early saves lives. Anyone who dies of undetected cancer would have been saved by screening. More testing equals better medicine. These principles feel self-evident, beyond question.

They are wrong."

 

= = = 

 

And honestly – flippin’ ’ek – you lot are getting properly dangerous now.

It started with you anti-vax fools frothing about mRNA vaccines… then that wasn’t enough, so you escalated to all Covid vaccines… then to all vaccines full stop.
Not content with that level of idiocy, some of you even decided antibiotics are part of the conspiracy too.

But this?

But.. this is the crowning achievement of your intellectual nosedive – encouraging people to ignore cancer diagnoses, and worse, to avoid getting checked in the first place.

That’s not scepticism. That’s not critical thinking.
That is astonishing, industrial-scale delusion – the sort of dangerous fantasy thinking that gets real people killed while you lot congratulate each other on being “awake”.

 

You need a reality check, because the Substack essay being posted here is a perfect example of how a tiny bit of misunderstood science, mixed with a lot of ideological panic, turns into dangerously stupid health advice - and here is why... 

 

 

1. The article treats “overdiagnosis” as if it means “screening is bad”.
Over-diagnosis is a known issue – grown-ups in medicine have discussed it for years – but the author essay straight from “sometimes screening catches harmless things” to “screening is harmful and pointless”. Absolute nonsense - and dangerous. 

Colorectal screening saves lives. Cervical screening saves lives. Certain age-banded breast screening saves lives. Only someone scientifically illiterate would pretend these benefits evaporate because an essayist said “hmm, uncertainty”.

 

2. Autopsy statistics don’t mean “most cancers are harmless”.
Yes, older people often die with tiny incidental tumours that were never detected. That does not mean your own newly found lesion is harmless. It does not mean treatment is pointless. It means population biology isn’t the same as individual risk – something the writer clearly doesn’t understand. Or doesn’t want to.

 

3. “Doctors can’t tell real cancer from pseudo-disease.”
Please. Pathology isn’t perfect, but between histology, biomarkers, imaging, staging, MDTs, and good follow-up, clinical teams have a very strong idea of what needs treatment and what can be watched safely.
The article takes a kernel of truth and inflates it into a sweeping, nihilistic claim that encourages people to avoid diagnosis entirely. That isn’t edgy. It’s reckless.

 

4. The piece pretends anecdotes beat decades of large trials.
You don’t get to ignore population-level evidence because someone on Substack had a “hunch” or read a cherry-picked study. Colorectal screening RCTs? Mammography meta-analyses by age group? Cervical screening outcomes? All inconvenient for the article’s narrative, so it waves them away like a toddler.

 

5. The essay drifts into pseudo-biological woo (“tumours might be protective”).
Speculative evolutionary cancer theories are interesting in the academic sense, but they’re not clinical guidance. Turning them into “don’t screen, don’t diagnose, don’t treat” advice is irresponsible bordering on deranged - and also did I mention.. 'Dangerous' !!! 

 

6. And of course, you ant-ivax crowd lap it up.
Because once your worldview is “medicine bad”, anything that lets you avoid evidence becomes gospel. You lot will believe absolutely anything as long as it sounds rebellious and doesn’t require you to understand basic statistics. It’s almost impressive.

 

Here’s the reality: 

- Screening has real harms and real benefits.

- Responsible medicine balances both; Substack fabulists do not.

- Autopsy curiosities don’t magically mean your cancer is harmless.

- Rejecting screening entirely isn’t enlightenment – it’s playing Russian roulette with your own health.

- Pushing this anti-medical drivel to others is not just silly. It’s dangerous.

- If you genuinely care about informed choices, use guidelines, real evidence, and actual medical expertise.
- If you just want to posture about “knowing better than doctors”, at least admit that’s what you’re doing instead of pretending it’s science.

 

Jeffing fools.. 

6 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

And honestly – flippin’ ’ek – you lot are getting properly dangerous now.

It started with you anti-vax fools frothing about mRNA vaccines… then that wasn’t enough, so you escalated to all Covid vaccines… then to all vaccines full stop.
Not content with that level of idiocy, some of you even decided antibiotics are part of the conspiracy too.

But this?

But.. this is the crowning achievement of your intellectual nosedive – encouraging people to ignore cancer diagnoses, and worse, to avoid getting checked in the first place.

That’s not scepticism. That’s not critical thinking.
That is astonishing, industrial-scale delusion – the sort of dangerous fantasy thinking that gets real people killed while you lot congratulate each other on being “awake”.

 

You need a reality check, because the Substack essay being posted here is a perfect example of how a tiny bit of misunderstood science, mixed with a lot of ideological panic, turns into dangerously stupid health advice - and here is why... 

 

 

1. The article treats “overdiagnosis” as if it means “screening is bad”.
Over-diagnosis is a known issue – grown-ups in medicine have discussed it for years – but the author essay straight from “sometimes screening catches harmless things” to “screening is harmful and pointless”. Absolute nonsense - and dangerous. 

Colorectal screening saves lives. Cervical screening saves lives. Certain age-banded breast screening saves lives. Only someone scientifically illiterate would pretend these benefits evaporate because an essayist said “hmm, uncertainty”.

 

2. Autopsy statistics don’t mean “most cancers are harmless”.
Yes, older people often die with tiny incidental tumours that were never detected. That does not mean your own newly found lesion is harmless. It does not mean treatment is pointless. It means population biology isn’t the same as individual risk – something the writer clearly doesn’t understand. Or doesn’t want to.

 

3. “Doctors can’t tell real cancer from pseudo-disease.”
Please. Pathology isn’t perfect, but between histology, biomarkers, imaging, staging, MDTs, and good follow-up, clinical teams have a very strong idea of what needs treatment and what can be watched safely.
The article takes a kernel of truth and inflates it into a sweeping, nihilistic claim that encourages people to avoid diagnosis entirely. That isn’t edgy. It’s reckless.

 

4. The piece pretends anecdotes beat decades of large trials.
You don’t get to ignore population-level evidence because someone on Substack had a “hunch” or read a cherry-picked study. Colorectal screening RCTs? Mammography meta-analyses by age group? Cervical screening outcomes? All inconvenient for the article’s narrative, so it waves them away like a toddler.

 

5. The essay drifts into pseudo-biological woo (“tumours might be protective”).
Speculative evolutionary cancer theories are interesting in the academic sense, but they’re not clinical guidance. Turning them into “don’t screen, don’t diagnose, don’t treat” advice is irresponsible bordering on deranged - and also did I mention.. 'Dangerous' !!! 

 

6. And of course, you ant-ivax crowd lap it up.
Because once your worldview is “medicine bad”, anything that lets you avoid evidence becomes gospel. You lot will believe absolutely anything as long as it sounds rebellious and doesn’t require you to understand basic statistics. It’s almost impressive.

 

Here’s the reality: 

- Screening has real harms and real benefits.

- Responsible medicine balances both; Substack fabulists do not.

- Autopsy curiosities don’t magically mean your cancer is harmless.

- Rejecting screening entirely isn’t enlightenment – it’s playing Russian roulette with your own health.

- Pushing this anti-medical drivel to others is not just silly. It’s dangerous.

- If you genuinely care about informed choices, use guidelines, real evidence, and actual medical expertise.
- If you just want to posture about “knowing better than doctors”, at least admit that’s what you’re doing instead of pretending it’s science.

 

Jeffing fools.. 

I have quoted a few times on here that RP & SM are dangerous, unqualified fruitcakes.....🥴

 

I also think they should not be allowed to peddle their dangerous nonsense on here......🤔

18 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Not content with that level of idiocy, some of you even decided antibiotics are part of the conspiracy too.

I'm OK with antibiotics,

Cancer and vaccinations not so much.

2 minutes ago, transam said:

I have quoted a few times on here that RP & SM are dangerous, unqualified fruitcakes.....🥴

 

I also think they should not be allowed to peddle their dangerous nonsense on here......🤔

 

I agree, up to a point - I’m a firm believer in free-speech, and I don’t think anyone should be silenced outright.

 

The problem, of course, is when that free-speech veers into something genuinely dangerous - and then we run into the thorny question of who gets to decide what constitutes danger in the first place.

 

They’ve already been given a fringe sub-forum to push their agenda, which is fair enough. But their relentless stream of misinformation still spills across the ‘new posts’ feed on the forum’s front page, giving it far more visibility than it merits.

 

A simple but brilliant solution would be an extended ignore feature - not just ignoring individual posters, but automatically ignoring any thread they start. That way their nonsense wouldn’t clutter the front page, and we also wouldn’t have to endure the mind-numbing topics Harrisfan churns out too...

 

... They could sit in their own little echo-chamber, blissfully unseen by anyone other than those who actively seek out such idiocy...

 

 

12 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I'm OK with antibiotics,

Cancer and vaccinations not so much.

 

Ignoring the anti-vax sentiment that you wouldn't want a Polio, Rabies, Tetanus vaccination etc....  because there's been enough on that already (in other threads).

 

But... You are not ok with been screened for cancer ?

 

An old school friend just died of pancreatic cancer - notoriously difficult to screen for.

But - when there is screening widely available for other cancers - there is no decent excuse. 

 

Have PSA levels checked with a blood test...  Have a colonoscopy at 50 years old and every 5 years from then on, have polyps removed - not doing this would just be idiotic. 

 

 

 

13 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Ignoring the anti-vax sentiment because there's been enough on that already (in other threads).

 

You are not ok with been screened for cancer ?

 

An old school friend just died of pancreatic cancer - notoriously difficult to screen for.

But - when there is screening widely available for other cancers - there is no decent excuse. 

 

Have PSA levels checked with a blood test...  Have a colonoscopy at 50 years old and every 5 years from then on, have polyps removed - not doing this would just be idiotic. 

Age 70, don't fancy going bald, feeling like poop 24/7, and throwing up for my last year/s.

I've seen many people having cancer treatment, they all died as fast as those not treated.

Might be different for someone at age 30, but my life is done.

 

My wifes' pal, age 60, she has dialysis 3x a week, can't walk without someone to hold on to, sick all the time, can't see much, no energy, weak, has to stay at home on her own too sick and frail to go out ...... OK not cancer, but I'd rather be dead than live like that.

No news is good news, I guess.

6 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Age 70, don't fancy going bald, feeling like poop 24/7, and throwing up for my last year/s.

I've seen many people having cancer treatment, they all died as fast as those not treated.

Might be different for someone at age 30, but my life is done.

 

My wifes' pal, age 60, she has dialysis 3x a week, can't walk without someone to hold on to, sick all the time, can't see much, no energy, weak, has to stay at home on her own too sick and frail to go out ...... OK not cancer, but I'd rather be dead than live like that.

 

There are a lot of interesting reports of cancer cured by Fembendazole.

9 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

There are a lot of interesting reports of cancer cured by Fembendazole.

Dunno about that one, but one of my rabbits gets fur mites every year, Ivermectin gets rid of it right away.

4 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Age 70, don't fancy going bald, feeling like poop 24/7, and throwing up for my last year/s.

I've seen many people having cancer treatment, they all died as fast as those not treated.

Might be different for someone at age 30, but my life is done.

 

My wifes' pal, age 60, she has dialysis 3x a week, can't walk without someone to hold on to, sick all the time, can't see much, no energy, weak, has to stay at home on her own too sick and frail to go out ...... OK not cancer, but I'd rather be dead than live like that.

 

What you seem to be saying is age-specific and, in fairness, there’s a legitimate point buried in there: yes, there comes a stage of life where the marginal years gained from aggressive treatment may not be worth the toll it takes. No sensible person disputes that.

 

But your comment / argument falls apart with your proud refusal to be screened at all - as it doesn’t just affect you at 70 – it affects you at 60, 55, even 50... By deliberately avoiding screening 10 or even 5 years earlier, you’re not making some noble stand against futile end-of-life intervention. You’re simply increasing the chance that a treatable problem becomes an untreatable one....   had you found an issue now, its something that 'could / might' have been avoided IF you screened for it earlier...

 

And your comment appears to suggest that you’re advocating for no screening at all.

 

Screening isn’t about dragging a frail 90-year-old through chemo. It’s prevention in many cases, and early detection in the rest – which at the very least gives you an informed choice, rather than discovering a catastrophe so late that you’ve got none.

 

Your framing:  “either suffer through treatment and die in pain” vs “skip treatment and die quicker” –
isn’t profound. It’s a false, simplistic binary that ignores the entire spectrum of outcomes that early detection actually makes possible.

 

 

 

On 11/17/2025 at 8:40 AM, Red Phoenix said:

H. Gilbert Welch

 

We have another winner!

 

In September 2018, Welch resigned from Dartmouth College after a 20-month long research misconduct investigation at Dartmouth concluded he had committed plagiarism.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Gilbert_Welch

8 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Dunno about that one, but one of my rabbits gets fur mites every year, Ivermectin gets rid of it right away.

 

Yes, ivermectin has had very good reported results for cancer as well.

2 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Yes, ivermectin has had very good reported results for cancer as well.

Are you sure.......?   🤫

 

https://www.macmillan.org.uk/about-us/latest-news/news-and-stories/cancer-and-ivermectin

2 minutes ago, transam said:

Are you sure.......?   🤫

 

https://www.macmillan.org.uk/about-us/latest-news/news-and-stories/cancer-and-ivermectin

 

Yes.

Just now, rattlesnake said:

 

Yes.

How come experts say you are wrong...........🤔

Are you a medical expert in the cancer field......?  🤫

3 minutes ago, transam said:

How come experts say you are wrong...........🤔

Are you a medical expert in the cancer field......?  🤫

 

Because if they said any otherwise, they would lose their careers.

10 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

Thanks.  I recommend everybody whose doctor is recommending a biopsy to 'screen/diagnose' his cancer condition to watch this 1,5 minute clip.  Once again a 'recommended'  medical intervention that worsens the problem...

I read an article back in the 90’s where researchers showed that needle biopsies exacerbated the cancer growth due to oxygen exposure. Whether or not it was proven, have no idea.

1 minute ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Because if they said any otherwise, they would lose their careers.

Oh, then I think I will put you in the same category as the OP and his sidekick.......😬

1 minute ago, transam said:

Oh, then I think I will put you in the same category as the OP and his sidekick.......😬

 

By all means.