Same here, followed up by a formal request via the Health Dept's website to opt out of the program which has a 95% false positive rate and may lead to unnecessary colonoscopy with risk of perforation amongst other harms. If there are no other symptoms and you eat lots of fibre it's probably not bowel cancer,, despite what a positive test allegedly shows.
..."The authors stress that their ecological study design (i.e. comparing population-level data) is not as robust as a randomised controlled trial, and cannot be taken as proof that Germany’s skin cancer screening program has failed to reduce the risk of dying of melanoma."...well then if that is the case, then their silly study is USELESS. These people are idiots...to the MAX.
No, not true. Once a universal screening program has been adopted, it's not possible to do an RCT of screening in that region... and these screening programs are almost always adopted IN THE ABSENCE of an RCT that demonstrates efficacy. In order to determine whether a screening program has been effective, a variety of study designs need to be used.
If you're a scientist or health economist who wants to alert policy-makers that they may have instituted a screening program that does not deliver value for the taxpayers who are footing the bill for it, an ecological study is a good first step, because they are quick and cheap to perform, and don't have any ethical problems because they use publicly-available, deidentified data. The problem is that once a screening program has been instituted, it's bloody hard to get governments to drop it. The same interest groups that probably lobbied for the program in the first place, are now making gobs of money out of it, and they'll fight tooth and nail to keep the program even if it's not delivering any tangible benefits. This is exactly what has happened with screening mammography, screening colonoscopy and PSA testing.
In order to put sufficient pressure on policy-makers to get them to reconsider their ill-advised programs, there needs to be a sufficient body of evidence from ecological, case-control and cohort studies.
Much like the abominations that are most if not all childhood vaccinations. No valid placebo, abysmal safety follow-up periods, in some cases absurdly small cohorts, toxic adjuvants to brute-force a measurable antibody response in blood that has in many if not all respiratory ailments SFA relevance to reducing transmission in the first instance, etc, etc. Yet simply by virtue of them being approved by a bent (not incompetent), corrupt cabal that same immoral phalanx then gets to play the ethical card to rule out doing valid science and RCTs to actually prove the BS safe and effective marketing BS.
That so many people still can't see through this charade is always deeply tragic to me.
On a slightly different note, I'm not sure if you are a subscriber, but Jamie Andrews at the Virology Control Experiments substack is tearing 'vit'-D supplementation a new one. I for one did not know cholecaciferol was the active ingredient in some rat poisons.
Funny how supporting our bodies to do what they do naturally given half a chance is most often a better idea than popping pills, jabbing crap into new borns, and generally increasing the profits of pharma snakes.
Yes, childhood vaccines are another good example of an intervention introduced without evidence that it improves population health. No government will ever do an RCT of any of the childhood vaccines. AFAIK, the mRNA convid jabs were the first vaccine ever put to a truly placebo-controlled trial*, and that only happened because ICAN petitioned the FDA for it. The 'placebo' in the AstraZeneca shot trial was a meningitis vaccine, known for its high reactogenicity.
Re vitamin D, I'm no fan of taking it as a supplement (hence my 6-part series on it) but it's a bit misleading to point out that cholecalciferol is used as a rat poison as the poisonous effect is very much dose-dependent. Caffeine will kill you if you take enough of it in one go, but billions of people consume caffeinated beverages every day.
* One of the Gardasil trials had a so-called placebo group that actually got the aluminium adjuvant, and their small true placebo group was folded into the fake placebo group to hide the adverse reactions to that adjuvant.
Funny how the person deemed competent enough to head up the Moderna mRNA trial suddenly became a borderline incompetent heretic when news of his jabbed vs unjabbed kids study leaked.
Whilst never definately able to prove causation like a valid RCT, every govt, including it should be noted ones using our $ to promote childhood jabs, has for decades been sitting on their own national jabbed vs unjabbed data, that again it should be noted we paid for, but for some inexplicable reason they won't publish it. I'm sure it's just a conspiracy theorist overactive imagination and not the subject of any future I told you thusly.
Your vit D deep dive is one of my fave substack articles and I agree about the dose dependant aspect.
I have precisely zero doubt that the Australian government - which has, via Medicare, access to all the data on Australians' visits to doctors, their prescriptions, and hospitalisations, AND all the data on vaccine uptake - has run that jabbed vs unjabbed study. Now, why won't they release it? There are no benign answers to that question.
I'm really glad that vitamin D series resonated with you. I think it was too long and detailed for many :).
I threw my bowel scan “free” check into the bin. Free means someone else paid for it.
Same here, followed up by a formal request via the Health Dept's website to opt out of the program which has a 95% false positive rate and may lead to unnecessary colonoscopy with risk of perforation amongst other harms. If there are no other symptoms and you eat lots of fibre it's probably not bowel cancer,, despite what a positive test allegedly shows.
Yep, everyone's tax dollars hard at work (not).
This is how they get more business. You can assume that most studies have a significant "false positive" outcome and that is how they get you.
..."The authors stress that their ecological study design (i.e. comparing population-level data) is not as robust as a randomised controlled trial, and cannot be taken as proof that Germany’s skin cancer screening program has failed to reduce the risk of dying of melanoma."...well then if that is the case, then their silly study is USELESS. These people are idiots...to the MAX.
No, not true. Once a universal screening program has been adopted, it's not possible to do an RCT of screening in that region... and these screening programs are almost always adopted IN THE ABSENCE of an RCT that demonstrates efficacy. In order to determine whether a screening program has been effective, a variety of study designs need to be used.
If you're a scientist or health economist who wants to alert policy-makers that they may have instituted a screening program that does not deliver value for the taxpayers who are footing the bill for it, an ecological study is a good first step, because they are quick and cheap to perform, and don't have any ethical problems because they use publicly-available, deidentified data. The problem is that once a screening program has been instituted, it's bloody hard to get governments to drop it. The same interest groups that probably lobbied for the program in the first place, are now making gobs of money out of it, and they'll fight tooth and nail to keep the program even if it's not delivering any tangible benefits. This is exactly what has happened with screening mammography, screening colonoscopy and PSA testing.
In order to put sufficient pressure on policy-makers to get them to reconsider their ill-advised programs, there needs to be a sufficient body of evidence from ecological, case-control and cohort studies.
Much like the abominations that are most if not all childhood vaccinations. No valid placebo, abysmal safety follow-up periods, in some cases absurdly small cohorts, toxic adjuvants to brute-force a measurable antibody response in blood that has in many if not all respiratory ailments SFA relevance to reducing transmission in the first instance, etc, etc. Yet simply by virtue of them being approved by a bent (not incompetent), corrupt cabal that same immoral phalanx then gets to play the ethical card to rule out doing valid science and RCTs to actually prove the BS safe and effective marketing BS.
That so many people still can't see through this charade is always deeply tragic to me.
On a slightly different note, I'm not sure if you are a subscriber, but Jamie Andrews at the Virology Control Experiments substack is tearing 'vit'-D supplementation a new one. I for one did not know cholecaciferol was the active ingredient in some rat poisons.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-201210611
Funny how supporting our bodies to do what they do naturally given half a chance is most often a better idea than popping pills, jabbing crap into new borns, and generally increasing the profits of pharma snakes.
/rant :-)
Yes, childhood vaccines are another good example of an intervention introduced without evidence that it improves population health. No government will ever do an RCT of any of the childhood vaccines. AFAIK, the mRNA convid jabs were the first vaccine ever put to a truly placebo-controlled trial*, and that only happened because ICAN petitioned the FDA for it. The 'placebo' in the AstraZeneca shot trial was a meningitis vaccine, known for its high reactogenicity.
Re vitamin D, I'm no fan of taking it as a supplement (hence my 6-part series on it) but it's a bit misleading to point out that cholecalciferol is used as a rat poison as the poisonous effect is very much dose-dependent. Caffeine will kill you if you take enough of it in one go, but billions of people consume caffeinated beverages every day.
* One of the Gardasil trials had a so-called placebo group that actually got the aluminium adjuvant, and their small true placebo group was folded into the fake placebo group to hide the adverse reactions to that adjuvant.
Funny how the person deemed competent enough to head up the Moderna mRNA trial suddenly became a borderline incompetent heretic when news of his jabbed vs unjabbed kids study leaked.
Whilst never definately able to prove causation like a valid RCT, every govt, including it should be noted ones using our $ to promote childhood jabs, has for decades been sitting on their own national jabbed vs unjabbed data, that again it should be noted we paid for, but for some inexplicable reason they won't publish it. I'm sure it's just a conspiracy theorist overactive imagination and not the subject of any future I told you thusly.
Your vit D deep dive is one of my fave substack articles and I agree about the dose dependant aspect.
I have precisely zero doubt that the Australian government - which has, via Medicare, access to all the data on Australians' visits to doctors, their prescriptions, and hospitalisations, AND all the data on vaccine uptake - has run that jabbed vs unjabbed study. Now, why won't they release it? There are no benign answers to that question.
I'm really glad that vitamin D series resonated with you. I think it was too long and detailed for many :).