I'm not normally a fan of the r/atheism style of debate where people invoke the names of various logical fallacies to make themselves feel smart, but this does seem like a good time to revisit that little concept called the "burden of proof."
The initial commenter I responded to made a decidedly outrageous claim that primary care visits kill more people than they help. And I'm starting to think that even acknowledging that claim was a waste of my time, because now I'm being asked to seriously prove that doctors are not recklessly slaughtering patients by asking them to turn and cough once a year.
I am following actual research, as mentioned in the article. It’s not difficult to test the outcome of annual doctors visits, and shockingly they don’t save lives.
You’re seemingly basing your opinion on gut feelings or something.
> They found that “although general health checks increase the number of new diagnoses, they do not decrease total, cardiovascular-related, or cancer-related morbidity or mortality.”
And then gives a single anecdotal example of a biopsy gone wrong that almost (but didn't) result in a patient's death.
You made a completely orthogonal claim that annual exams *"cost as many lives as they save," which is extremely dubious on the face of it and not supported by the very research you're claiming to cite.
That’s literally what failing to reduce total mortality means. You can’t statistically separate saving 0 lives and costing 0 lives with saving 5 lives and costing 5 lives.
No it does not lol. Failing to reduce mortality is not remotely the same thing as actually increasing mortality.
"Cost as many lives as they save" means the physician visits are actively driving deaths that would otherwise would not occur if those people had not visited their doctor (which is also what you said, like, two comments ago).
"Failing to reduce total mortality" means that physician visits did not save people who already had medical conditions that were going to kill them.
> "Cost as many lives as they save" means the physician visits are actively driving deaths that would otherwise would not occur if those people had not visited their doctor (which is also what you said, like, two comments ago).
Unless there is spare capacity, a bunch of young, healthy people going to a the doctor means that older, unhealthy people are unable to. Is it really that hard to imagine a scenario in which more people visiting the physician could lead to more deaths occurring?
Ahh, taking a moment to bask in the ignorance. If nothing else car accidents are going to kill some of them.
You’re arguing that billions of doctors visits for hundreds of millions of people save save exactly 0 lives and cost exactly 0 lives. That seems unlikely, but even still 0 = 0.
Okay so I guess both the poster you responded to as well as you are making unfounded claims? Okay I won’t argue against that. I’m sure this comment thread has had hundred of unfounded claims made supporting various positions. In any case, I guess you are confirming that you in fact don’t have support for the claims you’ve made.
> because now I'm being asked to seriously prove that doctors are not recklessly slaughtering patients by asking them to turn and cough once a year.
I never said you claimed this. If you would like to bring in debate terminology, you seem to be engaging in a straw man.
The initial commenter I responded to made a decidedly outrageous claim that primary care visits kill more people than they help. And I'm starting to think that even acknowledging that claim was a waste of my time, because now I'm being asked to seriously prove that doctors are not recklessly slaughtering patients by asking them to turn and cough once a year.