But what happens now is that autism is increasing significantly and there is no downstream effect that makes children better. We need to see a slightly happier population, but what we are looking at is worsening mental health. We did our intentional work, but there is no evidence that it works.
The reason that does not work is that it has an abnormal brain because it is balanced between the advantages of being diagnosed when reaching the very gentle end of the spectrum of behavior or learning problems and the disadvantages of the help and diagnosis you can obtain. How does that affect your child’s faith? How are they stigmatized? How does it affect the formation of identity? We thought it would be helpful to speak to children, but statistics and results suggest that it doesn’t help.
I am also worried about another aspect of excessive detection diagnosis. One example provided to this book is associated with modern cancer selection programs that detect diseases at the previous and gentle stages. But so far, there is little proof that this is actually beneficial to the patient.
All cancer selection programs will be treated when they do not need to be treated. It is always so. What we desperately confuse is that we want to maintain the number of people who need exaggerated people and those who need treatment. But the more sensitive the test, the more people who are overly diagnosed are diagnosed. I read that if 2,000 women are selected in the Cokrain review, they will save one life and treat women between 20 and 20. You always deal with more people than you actually see. Therefore, the suggestion that we must do more tests before we complete the test is meaningless to me.
I have several brain scans a week and many people showcase their discovery. Although I am a neurologist and I always see the brain scanning, I do not know how to make half of them. We still don’t know how to correct this scan correctly. We should pay more attention to detecting symptoms early, rather than trying to detect asymptomatic diseases that can never progress.
For example, in some cancers (e.g. national cancer), the patient can choose. I’m waiting carefully Rather than treatment. Should this be the standard of early detection?
If you are going to be judged and you don’t want people to do not want to be offered, you should realize that you don’t have to understand uncertainty and not be embarrassed. Of course, the moment you hear, there are some cancer cells, panic begins, you want it, and you want the maximum treatment. But in reality, you can make a lot of decisions slowly. Carefully there is a standby program.
I would like to suggest that before you know that this uncertainty exists before you select, it can take time to decide what you want to do before you decide what you want to do, it will take time to think about it later, and you can carefully request a waiting program.
One of the solutions is to call these abnormal cells found to select something other than “cancer”. The moment you hear that, the immediate reaction of people is to take it out. Otherwise, they think they will die. Waiting carefully is hard to do people.
Listen to suzanne O’Sullivan Wired health March 18 at Kings Place in London. Get a ticket Health.wired.com.
